Rathlin Energy’s West Newton A well site north of Hull, 20 January 2019. Photo: Peter Yankowski

Views are invited on an application by Rathlin Energy to change its environmental permit for the West Newton oil and gas site north of Hull.

A public consultation runs until 11 February 2019. There is a drop-in information meeting this week near the site.

Rathlin wants to vary its existing mining waste permit to allow it to carry out extended well tests on two wells at West Newton. It also wants permission to store crude oil on the site and burn gas in a flare with a capacity above 10 tonnes a day.

The company is preparing to drill a second well at the site, after gaining a second extension of planning permission in November 2018.

Lorry route to Rathlin Energy’s West Newton A well site north of Hull, 20 January 2019. Photo: Peter Yankowski

Earlier this month, the conductor rig, which sets the first layer of steel casing, was installed and opponents began round-the-clock monitoring operations.

They said they were prompted to do this because Rathlin Energy breached at least 14 conditions of its existing environmental permit during flow tests on the first well in 2014. (DrillOrDrop reports here and here).

Rathlin Energy’s West Newton A well site north of Hull, 20 January 2019. Photo: Peter Yankowski

The Environment Agency, which grants permits, said it was seeking views from the local community and interested groups on the company’s application for a permit variation. It said:

“This proposes changes to the way tests would be carried out on an exploratory well, scheduled for drilling in early 2019, to assess its potential for oil and gas production.”

Documents about the application can be read online and comments submitted here

Francis Lowe, Environment Manager for the Environment Agency, said:

“The regulatory controls covered by the company’s environmental permit provide a high level of protection for people and the environment. We will now assess proposals to vary the conditions of the permit to ensure that the changes proposed by Rathlin Energy continue to meet these same strict requirements.”

“We also welcome comments from the public and interested groups on local environmental factors that people feel are important.”

This post has live news updates from Day 4 of the inquiry into IGas plans to test for gas flows at its well at Ellesmere Port in Cheshire. The hearing will hear objections or concerns from three local MPs, councillors, the police and crime commissioner and members of the public.

Key points from Day 4

I don’t want a new housing estate to be half-built because people don’t want to live there – Justin Madders MP

IGas plans are step to the past that could do harm and fail to address environmental concerns – Mike Amesbury MP

Police and Crime Commissioner has concerns about whether Cheshire could resource policing of protests at the site

It is entirely illogical to explore for new sources of fossil fuels when we must take action to limit temperature rise – Friends of the Earth

“We cannot take any further risks with children’s health in Ellesmere Port – former teacher

“IGas scheme will rob Ellesmere Port communities of opportunities available to them” – local resident and councillor

IGas scheme is unacceptable risk that would restrict economic development of Ellesmere Port – local councillor

Ellesmere Port has always been considered as a convenient dumping ground for the rest of Cheshire and it is time for this to stop – local councillor

The IGas scheme will worsen health problems in Ellesmere Port – local opponent

“We cannot take any further risks with children’s health in Ellesmere Port” – local teacher

Why would IGas carry out testing if they did not intend to move onto production?

Approving the application would set a precedent for gas production in built-up areas in the UK

IGas consultation and community engagement does not meet industry guidelines or the Aarhus convention – local campaigner

No speakers in favour of the application

Approving the IGas scheme would reward the few at the cost of the many- local resident

Site location shows “fantastic lack of concern for the welfare of the communities affected” – resident

12.55pm: Inquiry session closes

The inquiry resumes at 9.30am on Tuesday 22 January 2019

12.49: Tomasina Buckeridge – opponent of the scheme

She tells the inquiry that she developed asthma within six months of arriving in Ellesmere Port and was told this was because of the environment and climate change.

She says her home is within 4.5 miles of the Stanlow, where there was a fire in August 2018. She phoned Stanlow several hours after the fire began and was told it had not been put out.

“We in Cheshire cannot survive with the addition of shale gas extraction with yet another site containing potential catastrophes, real or imagines.”

“There is a tipping point and people who can afford to leave will do so affecting employment and the economy.

12.43pm: Gayzer Frackman – opponent of the scheme

Mr Frackman says he has opposed fracking in Lancashire for 10 years.

He pays tribute to three people who he says have died trying to oppose oil and gas developments in their communities.

He commends the Cheshire West and Chester council and local campaigners for opposing the planning application.

He calls for real-time monitoring of air quality on four sides of the site. He says regulators are too slow to respond to breaches of permissions.

Mr Frackman asks that regulators from the Environment Agency and Health and Safety Executive attend the public inquiry to address public concerns.

Applause from the audience.

12.37pm: Stephen Savory – opponent of the scheme

Mr Savory says he is voluntary director of Chester Community Energy Ltd, which has raised money for local solar schemes.

Mr Savory says:

“Small changes can make a difference if we act together.

“But confidence in combined action only works, globally, nationally or locally if everyone plays their part. Planning permission should not be granted for activities which clearly do no meet the test for sustainable development in the local plan.”

Mr Savory says savings on imported energy, stated by IGas, could also be achieved by insulation of homes.

“Time is running out for action needed to save our planet from damaging effects of climate change.

“This is why we should follow the requirements of the local plan and NPPF and refuse this appeal.

Applause from the audience.

12.32pm: Catherine Green – opponent of the scheme

Ms Green, a Chester resident, is a climate change ambassador for Cafod.

She tells the inquiry that her original objection to the IGas scheme focused on climate change. She attended recent climate change talks and met people from across the world whose homes were being destroyed by floods and drought. She says:

This cannot the first time government policy and planning law has not kept pace with public knowledge.

She calls for the application to be refused and for shale gas at Ellesmere Port to be kept in the ground.

Applause from the audience.

12.27pm: Fiona Leslie – opponent of the scheme

Ms Leslie says she lived for many years in Ellesmere Port and visits family there regularly. A year ago, she moved to back to Cheshire from London.

“I now live in Weaver Vale. My mother was extremely disappointed I didn’t move close to her in Ellesmere Port.”

She says she chose not to live there because of the already noxious environment with smells and tastes in the air

“I do not think it is appropriate to start yet another dirty industrial activity so close to the town and thousands of innocent people living and working and going to school there.”

Applause from the audience.

12.20pm: Fiona Jackson – opponent of the scheme

Ms Jackson says she has lived at Ince, near Ellesmere Port, for 30 years. She says she first heard about unconventional gas extraction when IGas drilled within 1km of her home, without notifying her.

“After talking to IGas, I found them to seem evasive and felt intimidated by their security. They seemed unable to answer some of my questions.”

She says she saw a BBC report in December 2014 showing an IGas pipe connector linked to a large storage tank with bolts missing from the connection and held in place by gaffer tape.

Photo: BBC News

“IGas repeatedly told us, that if they had no social licence to drill and operate their bysiness in our area, that they would listen to local opinion and go elsewhere. IGas you have no social licence to be here.

Ms Jackson reads a letter from her 11-year-old daughter, Amy, to the inspector, . This includes:

12.15pm: Alan Scott – opponent of the scheme

“It is shocking to see a shale gas exploration site inside an industrial estate next to a busy motorway which is next to a housing estate and near to schools and Ellesmere Port town centre.”

“This shows a fantastic lack of concern for the welfare of the communities affected.”

He says if the application were approved it would could stress, fear and anxiety which would last for years in the community.

He describes opposition to another IGas scheme at Upton.

Applause from the audience.

12.10pm: Pam Bellis – opponent of the scheme

Ms Bellis says there is a responsibility to protect the environment now and for future generations.

“Whilst this planning application is stated that it is for exploration only, IGas would not be going to these lengths and spending thousands and thousands of pounds unless they felt there were future opportunities for them to then apply for Shale Gas production to take place on this site.”

Ms Bellis says:

“We should no longer be pursuing the extraction of fossil fuels but should be actively funding and supporting sustainable renewable energy”

We have a responsibility to change our country’s habits.

“If this appeal is upheld it will be a travesty of justice and democracy, paying no heed to the impact on the environment, to the public view sought in the correct democratic manner and on the public’s health and well-being and it will be rewarding the few at the cost of the many.

Applause from the audience.

12.05pm: Drew Bells – opponent of the scheme

Mr Bells says he lives in Ince, where IGas has also drilled a gas well.

I am painfully aware that if this appeal is successful, the likelihood is that my quiet little village will be next in line for shale gas extraction.

He says

“We are here because thousands of people in our community said no. Our council said no. The science says no. Planet Earth says no. Why won’t IGas take no for answer?”

He says IGas is wasting vast amounts of time and money at expensive public inquiries on expensive lawyers. He urges the company to direct resources at the future, not the past and stop extracting fossil fuels.

Applause from the audience.

12.03am: Linda Shuttleworth – opponent of the scheme

Ms Shuttleworth asks:

“Where are the local residents speaking on behalf of the appellant, IGas, I am not hearing any local people saying yes, we do want exploration, drilling, assessment and extraction of shale gas in the midst of our communities.

On the contrary, the members of the public present at this inquiry are here because the are worried about these developments. They are here to say No again.”

Applause from the audience

11.59am: Jackie Mayo– opponent of the scheme

Ms Mayo says she has lived in Ellesmere Port for six years.

She says she didn’t realise how polluted the area was until she moved there. She discovered black spots on her car from pollution from the Stanlow refinery.

Pollution is a joke in Ellesmere Port, she says. She says there was a fire at the Stanlow refinery and there is pollution from waste incineration.

She tells the inquiry:

I have to take a day off work to be here.

Other people want to be here but cannot afford to take time off and don’t want to speak publicly.

The people say no, the council said no, and now IGas expect us to pay for this appeal. I think it is disgusting.

Applause from the audience.

11.53am: Tim Budd – opponent of the scheme

Mr Budd has lived in Ellesmere Port for more than 20 years. He says he, and local friends and family oppose the scheme.

He says it has been proposed to him that the Portside area of Ellesmere Port is the best place for the site because of the docks, industry and motorway. He asks:

Haven’t the people of Ellesmere Port suffered enough?

He says they have already had to put up with polluting industries and a motorway carved through the community.

Just as Ellesmere Port is beginning to be regenerated, IGas seems to believe it can come in an start this proposed development, hidden behind the motorway.

Local people work in the local heavy industries. They know that emissions limits, noise levels, operating procedures are sometimes breached. No one will know what the effects will be, he says.

No one can deny there is potential for light pollution, noise and reduced air quality, he says.

Applause from the audience.

11.46am: Phil Coombe – opponent of the scheme

Mr Coombe is a founder member of Frack Free Upton. He says he is speaking about public consultation.

He says local independently verified surveys show 70-80% of people surveyed in local Cheshire villages oppose oil and gas developments.

IGas claims to have engaged with the Ellesmere Port communities because of three exhibitions in the town and by leafleting. Mr Coombe says he has not met anyone who has received a leaflet.

Businesses neighbouring the site have opposed the scheme, he says. Frack Free Ellesmere and Upton has not met any residents on new estates nearest the site who have been contacted by IGas or the council, he says.

The Aarhus Convention requires that people have the chance to contribute to environmental decision-making.

Natural justice requires a much higher standard of consultation than that carried out by IGas. It does not meet the UKOOG guidelines.

The 2017 exihibition was poorly publicised and poorly attended. IGas has been disingenous and disrespectful to Ellesmere Port residents.

Applause from the audience.

11.40am: Paul Bowers – opponent of the scheme

Mr Bowers is representing Cheshire West and Chester Green Party.

He says his objection is on climate change and air quality grounds.

He says the area already exceeds legal limits of air pollution and additional increase in traffic fumes is unacceptable.

“The existing strain upon the social and physical well-being of the local population, in which rates of mortality are significantly greater than the national average, means that the high levels of toxicity inherent to the process of extracting and flaring untreated gases must be avoid.

“The proposed development is simply too great a risk to establish so close to communities that are already sensitized to the adverse accumulative effects of heavy industry and environmental contamination.”

“The extreme proximity of the Portside site to an urban area, whilst posing various risks to the local population, also threatens communities throughout the UK, by setting a dangerous national precedent if permitted.”

Applause from the audience.

11.34am: John Tacon – opponent of the scheme

Dr Tacon worked for the Environment Agency for 19 years until he retired in 2010.

He is speaking on behalf of the Chester World Development Forum. He says he distrusts many policies adopted by the UK government, particularly on the unconventional oil and gas industry, which he believes are “driven not by evidence but by financial expediency, political dogma and favour special interest groups over the national interest.

Fracking for oil and gas is, he says, “dangerous, unnecessary, and unsustianable”.

He says he wants people to be aware of how the EA regulates sites.

It relies on self-monitoring by the process operator through adoption of an agreed process management system.

A breach of a permit condition would have to be reported, like an uncontrolled release of gas, within a specified period. Failure to report the release, rather than the release itself, would be grounds for a sanction by the Environment Agency. He says this is the equivalent of relying on motorists to report their own speeding.

The EA does this because of the low number of inspectors. Inspections are a rarity and control relies generally on annual submissions for the pollution inventory.

Since he left the EA, Dr Tacon says, staff numbers have fallen because funding was cut to the parent department, Defra, and staff have been seconded to government to work on Brexit. It originally has some degree of independence but is now dependent on Defra.

Dr Tacon says:

“I believe developing fracking in this crowded country, with its fractured geology,

He argues that aquifers are at risks of pollution. .

The proposed development by IGas at the EP1 location – within an urban area – is, in my personal opinion, absolutely expletive deleted bonkers, whether or not it involves the process defined as “fracking”.

“Why would they carry out expensive exploration testing if you’re not planning to move on to production to recoup your investment?

Applause from the audience.

11.28am: James Cameron – opponent of the scheme

Mr Cameron, an architect and resident of Chester, says he is concerned about the effect of noise from flaring and about climate change. He says the ecologically-important sites on the Mersey Estuary, north of the IGas site would be more greatly affected from noise than the houses on the south, which are screened by the M53 motorway.

He says Ellesmere Port’s future regeneration should not be “discouraged by the potential or adverse impacts of the appellant’s development with its noise, flaring, lights, heavy transport, fugitive and noxious gases, hazardous and contaminated materials, risk of fire, explosion and blow out and potential presence for a further 16 years or more under the 2010 planning approval.”

Mr Cameron said adds:

“It is disingenous to refer to this development as only short term as the appellant and others have done. It was proposed in 2009 and has been here for nine years already.”

He says IGas’s argument that the site did not discourage redevelopment was false and misleading. The site has been inactive for eight and a half years and there has been little information about the testing plans.

This appeals threatens the wellbeing of the local population, the sustainability of the town as a whole and the nearby ecological important sites, he says..

Applause from the audience

11.25am: Inquiry resumes

11.10am: Break

The inquiry resumes at 11.25am.

11.05am: Peter Benson – opponent of the scheme

Mr Benson says he is speaking for the Cheshire branch of Friends of the Earth.

He says he joined Friends of the Earth because of concerns about climate change. He says

“Future generations and even people living within the next 12 years will judge us on whether we take we take the action to tackle climate change.”

Applause from the audience

10.56am: Helen Rimmer – opponent of the scheme

Ms Rimmer, north west campaigner for Friends of the Earth, objects that the application is incompatible with the original application. She says there is also insufficient information about the environmental and health impacts, and local and government policy on planning and climate change.

She says the proposal does not make a positive contribution to local poor air quality. It will exacerbate problems, she says.

The proposal goes against the regeneration scheme for Ellesmere Port, which seeks to address negative perceptions and promote clean energy.

It also conflicts local planning policies, particularly on air quality, residential amenity and local environment.

On climate change, she says rapid and unprecedented changes are needed to limit temperature rise.

High-carbon fossil fuel development is not compatible to the aspiration to a low-carbon economy. Shale gas is not low carbon, Ms Rimmer says. This makes the case against fossil fuels is even greater, she says.

In this context, it is entirely illogical to explore for new sources of fossil fuels. Councils have a crucial role to reach climate targets. The council should be applauded for leading the way.

Worryingly, the air quality impact assessment concedes there could be period of venting, she says. Key information on the test process was excluded until after the original public consultation. IGas is unclear on how it will stimulate or what pressures it will use to extract gas trapped in the shale.

This proposal will have adverse impacts on climate change mitigation on air quality. It has been thoroughly rejected by local people and it should be refused.

Applause from the audience

10.50am: Chris Hesketh – opponent of the scheme

Mr Hesketh is speaking about his experience of IGas at a site 17 miles from Chester, at Duddleston.

He says Dart Energy, later bought by IGas, applied to drill for gas at Duddleston in Shropshire.

Mr Hesketh says Frack Free Duddleston showed how the geology of the area was unsafe to extract gas. IGas published a letter which derided the expertise of the group and rejected its conclusions.

IGas appealed against non-determination of the application. The appeal was to be heard by written representation, on IGas’s request, then upgraded to a hearing. It was later downgraded after complaints from IGas, and finally upgraded again.

IGas then withdrew the appeal on the grounds that the geology was unsuitable. The company did not apologise to local campaigners and then gave up the licence, Mr Hesketh says.

He says the experience involved the community in a lot of work and caused considerable stress.

Applause from the audience.

10.43am: Tony Walsh – opponent of the scheme

Mr Walsh, a resident of Ellesmere Port, is a former head teacher.

As a teacher I was very concerned to promote environmental studies, aware of a need to foster in the pupils to care for the natural world and play our part in conservation.

The children were taught we have only one world and to ensure its sustainable. They have their lives in front of them.

Mr Walsh says the IPCC says there could be less than 12 years to address the affects of climate change and to keep temperature rise to 1.5C.

I oppose the application for climate change reasons. We should be giving all our attention to renewable energy and energy efficiency.

He says there are other major issues on the proposals. These include the regeneration proposals for Ellesmere Port, providing jobs, housing and social infrastructure. Nothing was said in a public consultation on the regeneration about the IGas plans, he says.

Mr Walsh says he is also concerned about the proximity of the site to local housing. Granting permission could have impacts on proposed new estates, he says.

He is also concerned about extra traffic generated by the scheme. Ellesmere Port already experienced traffic congestion and there could be grid lock in the town, he says.

Mr Walsh says there is ambiguity about the type of acid. He also raises concern about hydrogen sulphide gas. This is a risk to local residents.

Applause from the audience.

10.34: Felicity Dowling- opponent of the scheme

Ms Dowling says she is speaking as a teacher and trades unionist.

She says the proximity of the well to local housing and industries is a major concern.

She says there will be an impact on sub-structure of the industry in the area. It is ridiculous that it would not affect a pipeline that crosses the area to Liverpool.

This is not a little industrial estate. It is heavy industry, she says.

To allow this in an area with heavy toxic industry and the pipeline is ridiculous.

It is dangerous

There is also a risk to the structure of the Victorian Ellesmere Canal, she says.

Ms Dowling says burning fossil fuels is the leading cause of childhood asthma.

She says that when she first started teaching she might see one asthma inhaler. Now there is a line of inhalers on a teacher’s desk.

“We cannot take any further risks with children’s health in Ellesmere Port. The statistics are a very clear. We need to improve the health of our children. There is no greater responsibility but to look after the health of children.”

We think the oil and gas industry is something that needs to be campaigned against, as asbestos was in the past, Ms Dowling says. Our children are suffering now. No further risk is acceptable.

Fossil fuels should be left in the ground. People who care about children in Ellesmere Port want clean air and a safe environment for them to grow up in.

Applause from the audience

Giles Cannock, for IGas, repeats that the scheme does not include fracking.

10.29am: Barbara Gegg – opponent of the scheme

Mrs Gegg says the IGas scheme could adversely affect the health of local people, in an area where there is already poor health.

She says traffic would be increased, adding to pollution. Lorries are already using unsuitable roads, causing noise and vibration.

There is already more than enough pollution in the area. There is already light pollution, which means she has to use black-out curtains in their bedroom.

People with respiratory illnesses on new housing estates will be affected by increased traffic.

Heavy industry is already affecting local people. Allowing the IGas scheme will only make things worse. These industries affect people’s health. People matter.

Applause from audience.

10.28am: Comment on applause

Brian Cook, the inspector, says the session will finish at 1pm.

He says if there is lengthy applause for each speaker fewer people will have a chance to speak.

10.19am: Jill Houlbrook – opponent of the scheme

Ms Houlbrook, while a councillor, says she is speaking as a resident. She says she has concerns about the impact of the scheme on the natural environment and local people.

She says if the refusal is overturned, Ellesmere Port will struggle to attract jobs and investment. The aspiration for the town is based on sustainability and clean growth.

There is an assumption by IGas that emissions are an acceptable result of the operation of the site.

That IGas is willing to enter into an agreement on the description of the scheme suggests there is a certain amount of eagerness by IGas to see this scheme approved.

She asks what IGas does not understand about the local opposition to its scheme

Public opinion is a material consideration. This is why our communities are here today.

The IGas scheme will rock Ellesmere Port to its core. It will rob communities of the opportunities available to them.

Ellesmere Port deserves a clean and happy future.

Giles Cannock, for IGas, says the scheme does not include hydraulic fracturing. Without prejudice, the company is willing to discuss an amended description or a condition to allay local concern.

Applause from audience

10.12am: Cllr Ben Powell – opponent of the scheme

Cllr Powell says

I looked at this application and think it represents an unacceptable risk to the local economy.

He refers to the National Planning Policy Framework on climate change, sustainable development and local businesses.

Cllr Powell says Ellesmere Port has succeeded in attracting local businesses recently. The site location is 270m from the Mersey Estuary SSSI, 100m from other businesses and close to the motorway and local houses.

I would submit that the application could restrict economic development and future growth of the area.

Approving this application would make the area an exclusion zone for some forms of economic development. This is against the NPPF. It carries a risk with very little economic benefit.

The council made a fair and proportionate judgement when deciding this application.

Applause from audience

10.08am: Cllr Pat Merrick – opponent of the scheme

Cllr Merrick represents the Rossmore ward which includes the well site on the Cheshire West and Chester Council.

She says she was not a councillor for the area where the drilling application was made until 2011. Cllr Merrick says:

Ellesmere Port has always been considered as a convenient dumping ground for the rest of Cheshire and it is time for this to stop.

I grew up in the shadow of Stanlow [oil refiner] and there have always been fears about an explosion or terrorist attack.

Breathing problems are a bigger problem in the local community, she says.

I am not opposed in principle to extract shale gas, she says. It is fine in open countries. It is not right in Ellesmere Port. It is not suitable anywhere in the UK. We are a very small island. We are over populated. It is the wrong place.

Applause from audience

Cllr Merrick is asked by IGas about the timescale of recent investment. He says it is in the past 5-10 years.

10.01am: David Keane, Police and crime commissioner – concerns

A representative of the Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner says he has a statement to read to the inquiry.

The statement expresses concern about the impact of the scheme on police resources. The concerns are based on the police eviction of a protest camp at the IGas site, which involved 200 police officers, involved three months of planning and cost £250,000+, the statement says. Soon after the eviction, IGas abandoned the site.

Police officers have to manage protests but continue to police with consent of the local community, the statement says. The protest at Upton was peaceful and good-natured, it says.

I am concerned about the likely implications if the development goes ahead and the impact this could have on the police service where demand outweighs resources.

I have great concerns whether Cheshire police could resource this operation.

Applause from audience

The inquiry inspector, Brian Cook, asks for clarification on the responsibilities of the Police and Crime Commissioner.

9.52am: Mike Amesbury MP – opponent of the scheme

Mr Amesbury is the MP for Weaver Vale.

He says:

“My constituents love the area where they live for many reasons; high among these are its natural beauty and its proximity to important wildlife habitat.”

He says what happens in the neighbouring constituency is of huge importance to them. Nearly a thousand constituents have contacted him since he became an MP about environmental issues. He says:

IGas plans do nothing to address concerns about natural habitats and climate change.

He says the Cheshire Science Corridor is working to be at the forefront of low carbon clean technology.

Shale gas is a step to the past. It fails to take our area in the right direction. It has the potential to harm what we already have.

The proposal is close to the Site of Special Scientific Interest – if these areas aredamaged or undermined it could decades before the ecosystem recovers. It could be changed permanent.

Mr Amesbury says there are already four air quality management areas in the county.

The proposal has the potential to make air quality worse. Acidisation could also harm local regeneration.

The company has failed to reassure the council and the local area on the impacts of acid and carbon emissions.

My constituents believe the decision made by the council was the right one and was justified on the evidence.

Constituents are at a loss to understand why when politicians have got something right they are being challenged.

I believe, as a local MP, I have reflected the views of people that the three MPs and councillors represent. We hope this view will be listened to.

Applause from the audience.

Giles Cannock, for IGas, asks whether the MP has confidence in the regulators. Mr Amesbury says the regulators should be strengthened. He says the government is trying to ensure that the industry, which he says should be kicked into the long grass, can march forward.

9.46am: Justin Madders MP – opponent of the scheme

Mr Madders is the MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston.

He says he wants to object on grounds of democracy, local developments and climate change.

He says he does not support unconventional oil or gas extraction. He says the planning committee and local decision making should be supported.

He says the site is a few hundred metres from new housing and leisure facilities.

“The area is changing. I don’t want that estate to be half built because people don’t want to live there.”

My biggest concern is climate change, he adds. Temperature rise must be limited to avoid climate change. More efforts on oil and gas extraction will lead to more temperature increase.

Applause from the audience.

9.34am: Chris Matheson MP – opponent of the scheme

Mr Matheson is the MP for the city of Chester. He says he has questioned the record of IGas on engagement with the public, the depth of the Ellesmere Port and the eviction of a protest camp at Upton. He expresses his concern about any promises the company may make on the Ellesmere Port test plan.

Mr Matheson says local democracy must be upheld. To overturn the council’s decision would challenge local democracy. He says his increased majority in elections is in part to his position on fracking and onshore oil and gas. He says world leading climate scientists from the IPCC conclude there are just 12 years left to take action to keep temperature rise to 1.5C. The IGas scheme does not contribute to these efforts. The government has said quick action ust be taken to tackle climate change.

This specific application will affect people adversely in Ellesmere Port – with a negative impact on air quality. The town is in the process are large-scale regeneration. The IGas scheme will affect the local economy and the health of local residents. It will also affect his constituents in Chester. The benefits of the scheme are likely to be minimal, he says. He calls on the ispector to reject the application.

Applause from the audience.

Giles Cannock, for IGas, asks if he has followed the progress of the inquiry. Mr Matheson says parliament has been following other matters. Mr Cannock says the council’s planning witness accepted the Ellesmere Port well was drilled lawfully. He asks Mr Matheson what reliance should be placed on the weight of the council’s evidence.

Mr Matheson says IGas forced an eviction of the Upton protest camp, resulting in considerable cost and disruption and then within days decided not to go ahead with operations at that site.

That is a level of the irresponsibility which I find very difficult to comprehend

That is not relevant to the inquiry, Mr Cannock says.

Estelle Dehon, for Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton, says IGas was not forthcoming with the community about the depth of the Ellesmere Port well.

9.30am: Day 4 of the inquiry opens

The inquiry inspector, Brian Cook, opens the inquiry

Reporting at this inquiry has been made possible by donations from individual DrillOrDrop readers

This post has live news updates from Day 3 of the inquiry into IGas plans to test for gas flows at its well at Ellesmere Port in Cheshire.

Today the hearing is expected to hear from the first witnesses for Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton, which opposes the scheme.

The session will begin with continuing cross-examination of the planning witness for Cheshire West and Chester Council, which refused permission for the scheme in January 2018. The council said the scheme failed to mitigate the effects on climate change.

The inquiry in Chester is now expected to last at least eight days. It will also hear from representatives of IGas and local people, including three of the area’s MPs.

Reporting at this inquiry has been made possible by donations from individual DrillOrDrop readers

4.35pm: Questions from the inspector

Brian Cook, the inquiry inspector, says he has to assume that the other regulators know what they are doing.

Should I be correct to understand that the Environment Agency’s decision is not to be relied upon, Mr Cook asks.

Professor Watterson says he is not saying but that there is much more information available. He says:

“We need to be much more serious about the adverse effects of poor air quality”

Mr Cook asks Professor Watterson: how do I accommodate what you have told me? You are asking me to apply a much more precautionary approach based on what we now know. Professor Watterson says:

“We lack data and the evidence that has come in over the past five years indicates problems at low levels for particular groups.”

How do you ask me to apply a precautionary approach – I have to allow or dismissed the appeal, Mr Cook asks? Professor Watterson says:

“From a public health point of view, there are gaps in the data. I think that Defra have indicated they want to drive down air pollution and it there in professional guidance. Inadequate data, evidence of harm, it would be consistent with Defra policy to be cautious.”

Ms Dehon asks what notice did the Environment Agency take of vulnerable groups. Professor Watterson says they have not been taken account of. These are major issues, he says.

4.10pm: Re-examination of Professor Andrew Watterson

The professor says he has carried out his assessment on the basis of an 18-week test planned by IGas.

Chemical list

Professor Watterson had complained about the lack of a complete list of substances used or produced by the site. IGas says it has provided a list.

Ms Dehon asks where on the IGas data sheet does it disclose information about inhibitors. Professor Watterson says he could not find technical data from the manufacturer or further information.

He says he expected the air quality assessment to give details of concerns but this was not provided.

He is concerned because some substances can have a health effect at very low levels.

Professor says:

It raises the question about one-eyed environmental impact assessments. You don’t look at some issues and then you can say there is not a risk.

Public health life cycle assessment

Professor Watterson says he expected to see a life cycle assessment for the testing phase. Estelle Dehon asks what this would provide

Professor Watterson says it would give details of what operations had been underway on the site, the chemicals to be used, what substances would be produced, what would be the likely exposures and effects.

This is what the Defra experts say is necessary for shale gas generally, he says.

Workers potentially “very vulnerable”

Ms Dehon says there are homes within 320m and business across the road from the IGas Ellesmere Port site. She asks Professor Watterson about the risk for the workers nearby. He says

“They are a group that is potentially very vulnerable.

“I visited the site and I was amazed to see the many work places and the many houses already there and likely in the future.”

3.36pm: Continued cross-examination of Professor Andrew Watterson

Members of the public hearing the evidence, 17 January 2019. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Mr Cannock says just one chemical will be used in acidising the well. Professor Watterson says he wants to identify accurately the exposure from substances to be used by the site.

Professor Watterson is asked what activities would produce or use other substances. Professor Watterson says a proper public health life cycle analysis would have this information.

You are talking about production, Mr Cannock says.

No I am not, Professor Watterson says. A life cycle analysis of the test should be straightforward for IGas, he adds. He says:

“You cannot keep separating off exposure. You need to look at the cumulative impacts.”

Mr Cannock and Professor Watterson disagree on whether there is a complete list of substances used and produced by the test site.

New housing

Mr Cannock asks about the location of housing 250m from the site. Professor Watterson says there is land 250m from the site that is earmarked for house building.

Risk

Mr Cannock says local air quality assessments conclude there is likely to be a minimal risk to vulnerable populations to benzene likely to be produced from the site.

Professor Watterson repeats he is looking for a complete list of substances.

Benzene

Mr Cannock says short-term Air Quality Assessment Levels are designed to address acute impacts. Benzene has been screened out, Mr Cannock says, because it is so low.

Are you asserting at those levels that benzene constitutes a significant health risk that should mean the application is refused, Mr Cannock asks.

“I am not disputing the figures. I am requestiing a full list”, Professor Watterson says.

Particulates

Mr Cannock turns to particulate emissions. Professor Watterson says policy should be to drive down particulate levels. Policy says there should not be a safe level, he adds.

Professor Watterson says he is quoting government guidance when he says increasing the particulate load will lead to a significant health impact.

Mr Cannock says the council does not monitor for PM2.5 particulates. Professor Watterson says there is an issue of don’t look and you don’t find problems. Government policy is about driving things down.

Professor Watterson says:

“We are talking about levels that breach the World Health Organisation targets. This is the level that the government wants to aim for.”

Professor Watterson says the Defra air quality guidance is that there is no safe threshold for PM2.5.

Traffic

Mr Connack says the expected traffic generation is below the screening threshold, it is for a short-term, with no residential receptors (homes) on the route.

Professor Watterson says that does not explain what the exposures are. Mr Connack says the numbers are below the sccreening thresholds so they have been screened out. Professor Watterson says there could be air quality declines.

3.22pm: Break

The inquiry resumes at 3.40pm with more cross-examination of Professor Andrew Watterson.

2.22pm: Cross-examination of Professor Andrew Watterson

Mr Cannock asks whether Professor Watterson is saying that production will add to climate change effects, air quality impacts and affect public health. Professor Watterson agrees. He says he is not commenting on whether planning permission should be granted.

Mr Cannock puts it to Professor Watterson that he has not provided authority for the proposition that the government does not support gas schemes that had an adverse impact on public health.

Health impacts or significant health impacts

Have you looked at this proposal on the basis of any health impacts or that there needs to be significant health impacts for it to be refused, Mr Cannock says.

Professor Watterson says he believes the government would not support a scheme with significant health impacts.

Mr Cannock says Cheshire West and Chester Council took account of air quality impacts.

Chemicals list

IGas provided details of the chemicals to be used in the well test, Mr Cannock says.

The Environment Agency was satisfied with the complete list, Mr Cannock adds. Professor Watterson asks where is the complete list.

Mr Cannock says he is adamant that there is a single chemical to be used in the acid wash. Professor Watterson says he would have seen a comprehensive list for all chemicals for all activities on the site to do an air quality risk assessment. We think we have the information, Mr Cannock says.

Professor Watterson says he is concerned about all the gases that could be released during flaring and their significance.

Mr Cannock says the Environment Agency used benzene as a proxy for other substances. Professor Watterson says some highly toxic substances with greater exposure risks than benzene could be released. We don’t have the complete list, he says.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”

Using benzene as a proxy does not allow me to make a proper assessment, Professor Watterson says.

Mr Cannock says these are issues controlled by other regulators. He says the Environment Agency was satisfied there would be no unacceptable impact on health.

Environment Agency assessment

Mr Cannock, for IGas, responds to Professor Watterson’s criticism that the Environment Agency permit considered only homes 700m from the site – but not new ones 320m away.

Mr Cannock says the council’s air quality officer asked for information to take account of the new housing. This was accepted by the council’s officers. This was addressed in the officer’s report on the planning application and not pursued by councillors.

Gas extraction process

Professor Watterson had said there was an area for debate on what process would be used.

Mr Cannock asks what is the area for debate. Professor Watterson says an Environment Agency statement that matrix acidisation will not be used at Ellesmere Port does not resolve his concerns.

Mr Cannock says there cannot be any changes to the chemical list. Professor Watterson says additional chemicals were identified in an FOI request and he is not reassured.

Professor Watterson a complete list of all substances would allow a life cycle public health assessment to be carried out.

Health impacts

Mr Cannock says Professor Watterson’s conclusions on health impacts of unconventional oil and gas are based on a US evidence base, even though the regulations were different. Professor Watterson says the UK government’s Defra air quality group recommended referring to US evidence.

1.33pm: Evidence from Professor Andrew Watterson on air quality

Professor Andrew Watterson. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Estelle Dehon, for Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton, introduces Professor Watterson, from the Faculty of Health Science at Stirling University. He is the first witness for the campaign group and will be talking about air quality.

Air quality risks

Professor Watterson begins his evidence (link to summary) with how unconventional gas extraction can affect air quality:

“Sources of poor air quality activities and impacts associated with Unconventional Gas Extraction (UGE) include vehicle movements, muds, cuttings, fluids used for acidisation or ‘fracking’, generators and pumps, flowback and produced water, gas venting, gas flaring, hydrocarbon production, condensate tanks, well workovers and maintenance and pipelines. there is a lack of clarity of the operation of what IGas willbe using in the test. He says the Environment Agency document that matrix acidisation will not be used in the Ellesmere Port well test doesn’t change his evidence.”

He says the conclusions of a government-commissioned report on air quality concluded:

“the current lack of knowledge regarding on-shore shale gas extraction activities and its environmental impacts in the UK context”

Doubts over IGas test proposals

He adds:

“There appears to be some debate about the type of extraction to be used by IGas. The company is clear that acidisation will be used to extract shale gas. Others are less clear that this does not involve ‘fracking’ in some form and will not do so in the future.”

He says IGas has not produced exact details of all the chemicals and materials to be used in the tests, how they would be used and there has been no public health life cycle analysis.

Professor Watterson says it would be relatively easy to produce a public health assessment for a short-term activity on an oil and gas site. The focus would be on acute and high level exposures, he says. He says he would expect to see the exposure, risk and possible receptors. He could not see these, he said.

Air quality risks in Ellesmere Port

Dr Watterson says the the rate of respiratory disease at Ellesmere Port is 70% higher than England’s as a whole.

For all Cheshire West and Chester, the rate of hospital admissions for children is significantly higher than England as a whole.

He says:

“Additional industrial developments, even for a very short period of time, can add unnecessarily in however large or small a way to the air pollution burden of the area for no benefit to public health.

“They can impact especially on local communities where health profiles are poor. This is because for example ‘’subjects with chronic respiratory diseases such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma are especially vulnerable to the detrimental effects of air pollutants”.

Dr Watterson says the Environment Agency assessment of risks to residents looked only at homes 700m away from the site. But new homes have been built nearer to it, he says:

“The Ellesmere Port populations likely to be affected by the IGas project have changed over time as has their proximity to the site.

“Environment Agency documents appear to cover only residences at 700m. Since those documents were produced, a new housing estate has been built apparently 320m away from the site, of which the EA was unaware. Discrepancies about population location and related risk assessments in the documents are a serious cause for concern.”

Professor Watterson says much has been written in the past 15 years about the importance of looking at multiple deprivation and cumulative environmental impact when assessing air quality effects.

This should have been picked up by IGas, he says. You don’t see any reference in the statement of case to vulnerability.

Environment Agency permit

Professor Watterson said the Environment Agency require further monitoring, noting omissions and errors within previous IGas documentation, indicating the previous risk assessments lacked necessary information. These also include omissions about residential use flagged by the Environmental Protection Team from Cheshire West and Chester linked to questions about receptor siting.

He adds:

“The Environment Agency assessment of the IGas permit application for well testing activities on the site was not a public health impact assessment nor did it consider a wider environmental health impact assessment of the proposal.

It did include suggestions for additional information needed prior to any decision being taken on the proposal but considered the proposal low risk from an air quality perspective.”

IGas conclusions “highly hypothetical and speculative”

Professor Watterson says IGas conclusions on air quality could be viewed as “highly hypothetical and speculative”:

“there is a serious and major question concerning the assessments:
the lack of a full and up to date assessment of air quality impact of diesel vehicles when the development will necessitate a high number of vehicle movements.”

“No reference to diesel impacts”

Professor Watterson says the IGas statement of case does not specifically refer to air quality impacts from diesel due to site operations.

“The [IGas] consultants’ reports examine potential vehicle and plant emissions but also do not refer specifically to diesel exhaust emissions. In addition, there appears to be no reference anywhere in the IGas statement of case to the diesel generating station. Yet all these activities will be contributors to poorer air quality with possibly adverse public health effects from the test site.”

Diesel is a carcinogen and does present risks and some people would think this is worthy of mention, Professor Watterson says. There is also no reference to particulates.

“It is almost like, ‘don’t mention the war’. You would expect these issues to be addressed.”

“I am at a loss things like diesel, carcinogens, vulnerable populations are missing from the air quality assessment. These are things that should be considered and they are not considered.”

Clean air strategy

Professor Watterson says the government strategy considers the cost of health care from poor air quality and the desire to drive up quality.

These are issues for industry to address very seriously, he says.

“IGas does not demonstrate sustainable development”

Professor Watterson says:

The government’s policy in favour of shale gas development does not support developments that will have a negative public health impact.

The balancing act between some forms of economic development and maintaining or improving public health has shifted significantly since 2010. This is based on good scientific evidence in favour of public health and reducing global climate change impacts through poor air quality and greenhouse gases that impact on every locality.

From a public health and
air quality impact perspective, the IGas proposal does not appear to demonstrate sustainable development but rather the opposite.

“Not all hazards initially identified”

Professor Watterson says:

Not all the project hazards were initially identified or have been fully now. The effects of these hazards combined, and with other hazards in the area, has not been fully factored in to risk assessments of human health linked to multiple pathways to the population around the site.

The size and vulnerability of that population has not been fully considered. The capacity to assess the risks of negative air quality impacts to human
health is limited and incomplete. The human receptor siting and measuring have been problematic. The evidence base for establishing the risk level is incomplete. The proposal does not reflect the latest peer-reviewed independent research.

1.28pm: New documents

The inquiry inspector, Brian Cook, (facing) and the council barrister, Robert Griffiths, 17 January 2019. Photo: DrillOrDrop

IGas submits a document on matrix acidisation in response to concerns by Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton. Giles Cannock, for the company, says the document confirms that the permit for the Ellesmere Port well does not include permission for hydraulic fracturing. The Environment Agency does not consider what is planned for the well as matrix acidisation. Mr Cannock invites the campaign group to reconsider its position on this issue.

Cheshire West and Chester Council submits a document on the government’s announcement on a government shale gas environmental regulator.

Estelle Dehon, for Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton, says she will make submissions on the matrix acidisation document. She submits a document on which Professor Andrew Waterson will give evidence.

12.29pm: Lunch break

The inquiry resumes at 1.30pm with the case for Frack Free Ellesmere and Upton.

11.36am: Re-examination of council planning witness.

Robert Griffiths QC (left), starts his rroe-examination of Conor Vallelly, the planning witness for Cheshire West and Chester Council.

Mr Vallelly repeats that based on the evidence he has seen he believes emissions mitigation is necessary.

He says the information is complicated and technical and given the sensitivity of the issue it would helpful to provide the information for the public. That would be beneficial to the appeal scheme and the industry generally, Mr Vallelly says.

Mr Vallelly adds that the quantification of emissions, produced by another council witness, Dr Paul Balcombe, was a very helpful exercise.

Flaring plans

Mr Griffiths asks Mr Vallelly how council members looked at the issue of emissions mitigation.

Mr Griffiths suggests that IGas is using a shrouded ground flare for the short-term drill stem test which is not best available technology. Giles Cannock, barrister for IGas, says these are issues that are the responsibility for the Environment Agency.

Brian Cook, the inquiry inspector, says the shrouded ground flares are best suited to short-term tests. Mr Griffiths says best available technology is not applicable to shrouded ground flares:

“The EA says enclosed flares provide the best performance for incinerating waste gases, Mr Griffiths says. The EA will consider other systems, including shrouded flares, he adds. But the operator must demonstrate that an enclosed flare is not suitable and there will not be a worse environmental impact.”

Mr Vallelly (right) says his general impression from the EA guidelines is that the technology is “kind of the best we can do, it is not perfect but it will have to do”. Mr Vallelly says there is some doubt about best available technology.

How is the inspector to make a decision on that, Mr Griffiths asks.

Mr Vallelly says the EA has reached a decision. The point for me would be is whether we stick what we have, which could be improved, or do we move forward.

“In simple terms, is it sufficient to go to the default standard oilfield practice or go to better techniques to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have an opportunity to change things.

“It sounded to me that gas capture for the initial drill stem test but for the extended well test there could be an opportunity to capture some of the gas and this would be consistent with policy and the direction of travel for climate change science.”

Giles Cannock, for IGas, says the EA considers flaring for extended well tests to be best available technology.

Tension between government shale gas and climate policies

Mr Griffiths refers to the government’s 2018 written ministerial statements on shale gas.

He asks Mr Vallelly about scientific understanding of methane emissions from shale gas exploration. Mr Vallelly says this is limited.

Mr Vallelly is asked about government proposals to continue to recover shale gas appeals for two years from 2018-2020. He says this recognises that the issues raised are not straight forward. He says the inquiry has to weigh policy against scientific evidence.

Mr Vallelly says

“It has highlighted the tension that does exist between policy and science: between the legitimate support of the UK government of hydrocarbon extraction and the science. We have a clear drive and commitment as a government to radically reduce greenhouse emissions and there is a clear tension with that policy and the one to extract hydrocarbon resources.”

“The point of emissions mitigation, as best possible, is a matter for this inquiry”

11.29am: Question by inspector

Inquiry inspector, Brian Cook (right), asks Mr Vallelly about areas in Ellesmere Port which are now new housing development. Mr Cook says he is unclear about why the Environment Agency did not refer to this and whether the council had done anything about its concerns of the impact on the areas. Mr Vallelly is unable to help.

11.01am: Break

9.33am: IGas continues to cross-examine council planning witness

The barrister for IGas, Giles Cannock, continues his cross-examination of Cheshire West and Chester’s planning witness, Conor Vallelly.

IGas could have taken the lead

Mr Vallelly agrees he accepts that not all measures available to mitigate carbon emissions from the Ellesmere Port flow test would be feasible. But Mr Vallelly says this was with the proviso that he is not an oil and gas expert.

Mr Vallelly says:

“There is a real opportunity for IGas to break the mould and a take a lead on this issue because it is not going to go away.”

In view of the opposition to the application, Mr Vallelly says:

“If the facts were set out clearly that would set the application apart.”

Monitoring

Mr Vallelly concedes that he does not address the issue of monitoring. He says this is an issue for the environmental permit.

Mr Cannock says monitoring is not mitigation. Mr Vallelly says monitoring would be a very helpful outcome of the scheme.

Mr Cannock puts it to Mr Vallelley that he believes the proposal complies with the development plan and should granted planning permission subject to the mitigation techniques. Mr Valley accepts that permission should be granted if the mitigation measures were acceptable

Mr Vallelly says:

“It’s a big if”

Mr Cannock says

“I don’t think it is”

This is inconsistent with Dr Broderick’s view that there should be no oil and gas development for climate change reasons, Mr Cannock says. Mr Vallelly replies:

“I make no apologies that witnesses to this inquiry approach the issue in different ways

“Which case is correct, Mr Cannock asks. Which reflects the reason for refusal?

Mr Vallelly says:

“I think my evidence is pretty clear.”

“Does it reflect the reason for refusal?”, Mr Cannock asks

“I think I answered that yesterday”, says Mr Vallelly

Depth questions of the well

Original diagram that accompanied the planning application for drilling. Source: IGas planning application for drilling the Ellesmere Port well

Mr Cannock raises the issue of the depth of the well at Ellesmere Port.

The original application made in 2010 said the well would explore for coalbed methane. But when the well was drilled to a depth of 1,000m+ deeper.

Mr Cannock says IGas emailed the council before drilling in 2014 to say the well would be drilled into the Bowland shale, at a greater depth than the coalbed methane.

Mr Vallelly asks what this has to do with his proof of evidence.

Mr Cannock says there was total transparency between IGas and the council. Mr Vallelly agrees.

Mr Cannock says the issue was raised in the committee report for the flow testing application in January 2018.

Mr Vallelly says he didn’t address this issue. Mr Cannock says it has been raised by third parties. He puts it to Mr Vallelly that the depth of the well was not a reason for refusal for flow testing. Mr Vallelly agrees.

Mr Cannock puts it to Mr Vallelly that the well was drilled “responsibly”.

Mr Vallelly accepts the proposition. Mr Cannock says:

“There is a headline for Twitter: MPA agrees well was drilled responsibly.”

Mr Vallelly says others disagree.

Policy updates

Mr Cannock asks whether planning permission should be refused because local policy needs updating on emissions and climate change.

Mr Vallelly says this case is a pivotal one and it needs careful consideration.

Mr Cannock asks Mr Vallelly the question again. Mr Vallelly says there is a real opportunity for the industry to lead the way on the issue of emissions.

Mr Cannock asks whether less weight should be given to existing policy because it needs updating. Mr Vallelly says no.

Mr Vallelly concedes the council has no policy on methane emissions. He accepts that monitoring is an issue for the environmental permit but he says he thinks it is also an issue for the inquiry. Mr Vallelly accepts that an updated local plan does not include new policy on methane emissions.

“It does not feature”, Mr Vallelly says.

Mr Cannock says the council’s case is irrational if it is not proposing new policy in its development plan on methane emissions.

Mr Vallelly says the issue was capable of being dealt with by IGas.

Mr Cannock says there is no need to update policy or tighter regulations. Mr Vallelly says

“In the real world of planning applications, across industry, not just oil and gas, we know applicants will do the minimum. That is why policy is important to make the need clear.”

Mr Cannock says regulations form a view on whether mitigation is appropriate. Mr Vallelly says he takes no issue with the environmental permits.

Cheshire’s development plan

Mr Cannock says the council’s development plan supports the proposal because it seeks to develop alternative hydrocarbon resources. Mr Vallelly says this is subject to unacceptable impacts.

Mr Cannock says the policy seeks to manage adverse impacts. It does not seek to eliminate them, he says. Mr Vallelly says this has not been his position.

Mr Vallelly says other than the sustainability policy I do not raise any other conflict with the development plan.

Council supplementary planning document

Mr Cannock says the SPD says gas should be used where possible and flaring should be avoided.

National policy

Mr Vallelly accepts that he does not argue that the National Planning Policy Framework is out -of-date. He says the NPPF policy on oil and gas is consistent with current government energy policy.

Mr Cannock puts it to Mr Vallelly that the Ellesmere Port application is for non-fracking shale gas exploration. The government considers this should amount to permitted development, avoid the need for a planning application.

Permit regime

Mr Cannock says Mr Vallelly cannot rationally argue that permission should be refused if mitigation techniques for the emissions are for the environmental permit.

Mr Vallelly says climate change and emissions are a matter for the planning authority. He accepts that he has not referred to the environmental permit regime.

“In my professional judgement I see no issues that require me to give evidence to the inquiry.”

He says he accepts IGas has complied with what is required of it on the permit. But he adds that he is not an oil or gas expert.

Democratic role

Mr Cannock asks whether the inspector has a democratic role. Mr Vallelly says we understand the role of a planning inspector.

Is the inspector’s role different from the planning committee, Mr Cannock asks. The inspector has an independent role. They both reach decisions, Mr Vallelly says.

The planning committee was 100% wrong to see their decision as a democratic role, Mr Cannock suggests.

I disagree, Mr Vallelly says.

Mr Cannock asks what is a democratic role. Mr Vallelly says councillors should fulfil their duty according to the code of conduct, to look at all the facts, listen to representations. They are elected to office, to decide whether they agree with the recommendation before them, he says.

Who is responsible for what?

Mr Cannock says the responsibilities of mineral planning authorities is set out in national policy. Mr Vallelly agrees.

Mr Cannock says the council’s supplementary planning document makes it clear who is responsibility for what. Waste gas disposal is an issue for the Environment Agency, he says.

You do not refer to the permit and proposed monitoring or the conclusion by the Environment Agency that flaring was the best available technology, Mr Cannock asks. No, says Mr Vallelly.

Mr Cannock puts it to Mr Vallelly that the planning authority and the inquiry should not consider emissions mitigation at Ellesmere Port. Mr Vallelly disagrees.

“The issue of greenhouse gas emissions is a matter for the inquiry.”

Are you saying the inquiry should duplicate the work of the Ellesmere Port, Mr Cannock says. Mr Vallelly says the Environment Agency considers flaring is best available technology.

9.32am: Additional submission

The inspector, Brian Cook, says he has received a late submission from Radiation Free Lakeland about the proximity of the site to a nuclear facility.

9.31am: More dates

Giles Cannock says the advocates are available in the week starting 26 February 2019 should the inquiry overruns.

9.30am: Inquiry opens

Inquiry chairman, Brian Cook, opens the third day of the inquiry.

Reporting at this inquiry has been made possible by donations from individual DrillOrDrop readers

Environmental campaigners are counting on protesters and senior judges to protect hard-fought rights which they say are under threat from powerful and wealthy onshore oil and gas companies.

The Court of Appeal is hearing challenges in March to injunctions against protest activity granted to UKOG and Ineos Shale, the UK’s biggest fracking company owned by the country’s richest man.

The hearing will be the latest attempt by individuals and campaign organisations to stem an increasing number of injunctions against protests at oil and gas sites across the UK.

There are now court orders in force at sites connected to the industry in 10 counties: Lancashire, Sussex, Surrey, Nottinghamshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire, South Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, Hampshire and central London. Some cover sites for which there is no planning permission.

Some of those challenging the injunctions took their case to parliament this afternoon for a meeting with MPs and peers.

The barrister, Stephanie Harrison QC, who is involved in the Ineos appeal, urged people opposed to the onshore oil and gas industry to continue campaigning and not to be deterred by injunctions.

“Those who are participating must continue to exercise their right. We have to keep campaigning and protest about matters of concern and importance.

“Yes we also have to challenge the injunctions in the courts but challenging in the courts is never enough. Even if we succeed the company can come back with other ways to undermine people’s rights.

“Real democracy is when people say ‘enough is enough, this is not acceptable’, and they take steps to pursue that.”

She added:

“If we do not succeed in overturning this process then I think that we have to recognise … very wide-ranging injunctions are going to be made with large repercussions across the board for many people with no effective opposition.

“For that reason alone this form of proceedings must be categorised as unacceptable and challenged both politically, as well as legally in the courts.”

Parliamentary meeting, 16 January 2019. Photo: Frack Free United

Friends of the Earth is involved in the UKOG appeal and is seeking to intervene in the Ineos case. The organisation’s head of political affairs, Dave Timms, said:

“The use of injunctions is taking the UK to a dark and frightening place where rights and liberties essential to a healthy democracy look very fragile”.

“They create a climate of fear where people taking lawful protest are uncertain about whether their actions could breach an injunction with the risk of imprisonment or having their assets seized.

“They put decisions about public order policing into the hands of the oil and gas industry with their army of corporate lawyers and private security firms.”

Oil and gas companies have always said they are not seeking to curtail lawful and peaceful protest.

But the injunctions have specifically outlawed the protest technique of slow walking, where protesters walk in front of lorries to delay deliveries. This has often been tolerated, and even facilitated, by police. People prosecuted for slow walking at recent protests have often been acquitted or, if found guilty, given a conditional discharge.

Breaching the terms of an injunction, in contrast, could result in people being found in contempt of court, for which the penalties are prison, fines or the seizure of assets.

“Bypassing constitutional rights”

Stephanie Harrison said the companies were seeking recourse through the civil courts to bypass the constitutional right of police to make decisions on the ground.

The onshore oil and gas industry disliked the police toleration of slow walking and some forms of sit-down protest, she said. It also disliked decisions made in magistrates’ courts on protest cases and regarded penalties as an insufficient deterrent.

Ms Harrision said:

“We say it is fundamentally illegitimate for a private company to use its powerful resources to go to the civil courts to recast the line where the police apply the legislation. There are concerns about the way the police have policed these protests but constitutionally they are the body that makes the decisions on the ground.”

She said:

“The primary aim of injunctions was to limit the number of people willing to participate, to intimidate and deter local activists and members of the local community from standing together with others who were involved in peaceful direct action protest.”

Barbara Richardson, a campaigner against shale gas operations at Preston New Road in Lancashire, where an injunction is in force, said:

“Even though protest of some nature was allowed, people were scared off, unclear about what they could do and worried about things like assets getting seized.”

Max Rosenberg, a campaigner against oil drilling near Leith Hill, in Surrey, said injunctions by Europa led to a loss of support and funding.

Persons unknown

Ms Harrison said the injunctions were particularly concerning because they were brought against persons unknown. She said this was a departure against ordinary legal process:

“If you don’t have an individual, who are going to be the defendants? Who will come to court and say this wrong and this unacceptable?”

Anyone who becomes a defendant in an injunction case risks having costs awarded against them.

Dave Timms, of Friends of the Earth, said:

“The risk of huge legal costs has a massive deterrent effect for anyone opposing these injunctions and means the legal process is already stacked in favour of the fossil fuel industry, and against the concerned public.”

The highway as a place of protest

Ms Harrison said the injunctions sought to rewrite the common law on the use of the highway as a place of protest, prohibiting actions that cause inconvenience or disruption. She said:

“They do not want people in large numbers on a regular basis being present outside these sites raising the profile, keeping the pressure on, continuing to draw attention to these activities of such concern.”

The injunctions had also resurrected an ancient tort of conspiracy to injure, Ms Harrison said:

“Its purpose is to bring in anybody who is involved in the campaign by making them liable for the actions of others because they can be said to be combining.”

She said this could include the very effective campaign tactic of discouraging members of the supply chain to work with onshore oil and gas companies.

“Communities must have a voice”

The injunctions come as the government is considering speeding up decisions on fracking and shale gas applications by taking decisions away from local council.

Vicki Elcoate, second left, with the women challenging the UKOG injunction.

Vicki Elcoate, of Weald Action Group and one of six women from Sussex and Surrey involved in the UKOG appeal, said the court orders had deterred people from protesting:

“At a time when the government is seeking to fast track fracking, it’s even more important that local communities have a voice.

“Across the South East, oil companies are pursuing a programme of extreme extraction using unconventional methods like acidisation. These far-reaching injunctions are being used by these companies to silence dissent.

“The law shouldn’t be there to protect the oil and gas companies against the overwhelming opposition of the people to this threat to industrialise the countryside and pollute our environment”.

“Gaming the legal system”

A defendant in the Ineos appeal, the fashion designer, Joe Corre, accused the industry of “appearing to buy the law by gaming the British legal system.”

“The reasons they were able to bring these cases to a secret court is because they painted a picture of local people as hard-core fanatics. Not only is that a lie, it is also incredibly upsetting to local people.”

They told the courts they needed injunctions to control these unreasonable people, Mr Corre said.

The barrister, Paul Powlesland, who represented Ian Crane in the IGas injunction case in December 2018 said injunctions should not be allowed where there was an existing criminal law. If that type of injunction were allowed the penalties for beaching them should match the costs of breaking the criminal law.

Baroness Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general and former director of Liberty, accused companies of privatising legislation. She called for practical suggestions on how a Labour government could act quickly to protect what she described as a “creative abuse of power”.

“Bringing people together”

Dennis May, an anti-fracking campaigner from the east midlands, said an unintended consequence of the Ineos injunction was that it had brought people together.

“This threat to democracy is one of the reasons why fracking is a Rubicon that cannot be crossed.

“It’s not just about gas. It’s not just about energy. The way it has been imposed on our communities is intolerable.”

Steve Mason Of Frack Free United, one of the organisers of the meeting, said.

“This meeting has reflected the huge amount of concern of these draconian injunctions. In this current political climate, I am encouraged by the fact we had representation of all the English parliamentary parties and the SNP shows there is a real political willingness and cooperation to oppose the threat to basic rights and to fracking as a whole.”

Additional reporting by Paul Seaman

Reporting from this meeting was made possible by individual donations from DrillOrDrop readers

Horse Hill oil site near Gatwick Airport, October 2018. Photo: Used with the owner’s consent

UK Oil and Gas, the major investor in the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, has forecast that permanent production would be underway by next winter.

This will follow extended well tests during this year on the current HH-1 well and two new boreholes, the company said.

In a statement to investors, the chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said:

“UKOG aims to deliver near-continuous oil production throughout 2019 via a combination of long-term testing of HH-1 and two new wells, followed by a smooth transition into permanent production in the winter.”

The statement said UKOG planned to continue the current extended well test on HH-1 until spring 2019.

It would then “move directly” into the drilling and long-term testing of two new horizontal wells, to be called HH-2 and HH-1z, the statement said. Planning permission was granted for this work in Ocober 2017. UKOG said environmental permits and funding for the work were also in place.

A new planning application for another four wells and long-term production at Horse Hill was submitted to Surrey County Council in December 2018. UKOG said it made an application for an environmental permit for this work last week (10 January 2019). Details of the permit application have not yet been published by the Environment Agency.

On the four extra wells, the statement said:

“It is anticipated that all necessary permits should be in place by autumn 2019, enabling a transition from EWT [extended well test] production into permanent production during winter 2019.”

Flow test data

The statement also gave details of the current extended well test on HH-1, which has been underway since June 2018.

It said the company had now produced more than 25,000 barrels of oil. Of this, more than 21,000 barrels had been produced from the Kimmeridge limestone. 114 tankers had been exported to the Hamble oil terminal, the company said. No formation water had been returned to the surface during the entire well test.

The company said 2,192 barrels were produced in late November from the KL4 section of the well. The flow rate was said to be 584 barrels of oil per day (bopd) based on the maximum measured over half an hour.

UKOG also said the KL3 and KL4 zones were now regarded as a single oil pool and the company had decided to produce from both sets of perforations at the same time. Flow rates from both sections varied from 303- 525 bopd.

Reporting at this inquiry has been made possible by donations from individual DrillOrDrop readers

Key points

Residents don’t trust IGas, which leads to stress and anxiety – local councillor

Gas production is a deliberate act of moving carbon from below the ground to above the ground where it has a damaging effect on the climate – council expert

Hydrocarbon production should not be considered climate change mitigation – council expert

Shale gas has no benefit in displacing coal and its role as a bridge fuel depends on the timescale – council expert

The IGas scheme does not comply with the Paris Agreement on climate change – council expert

UK carbon budgets are too high for the commitments made in the Paris Agreement and our policy is not compatible with achieving the results” – council expert

“We should be planning for an almost decarbonised energy system within the next two decades” – council expert

“The impact of the IGas scheme in climate change terms is significant, cannot be underestimated and in the planning balance the councillors were justified in refusing the application” – council planning witness

“shale gas exploration should not be an exercise which is undertaken at any environmental cost” – council planning witness

“In the current climate, I would give very significant weight to the views of local people” – council planning witness

5pm: Cross-examination of Conor Vallelly, council planning witness

Mr Vallelly says he has not promoted an oil or gas application or a environmental permit application.

Asked whether he had spoken to members of the planning committee about why they refused consent, Mr Vallelly says no. It is not a common convention or something he has come across, he says.

Reasons for refusal

Mr Cannock says IGas asked for clarification on the reasons for refusal. He says the author of council’s statement of case appeared not to understand the reasons for refusal. Mr Vallelly says he does not agree with that.

Mr Cannock says the council considered the issue of sterilisation of land as a reason for refusal. Mr Vallelly says that is not part of his case.

Mr Cannock put it to Mr Vallelly that the council statement of case suggests members considered hydraulic fracturing formed part of the exploratory and production phases at Ellesmere Port and they took that into account. Mr Vallelly says the statement says the members did have the correct information at the planning meeting. Mr Vallelly says he is clear that exploration at Ellesmere Port does not include hydraulic fracturing.

The council issued a supplemental statement of case before the appointment of Dr Broderick and Dr Balcombe, Mr Cannock says. Asked if it supersedes the original, Mr Vallelly says they should be read together.

Mr Cannock says there was other correspondence between IGas and the council on the refusal reason. Mr Vallelly accepts that the key issue is the use of mitigation by IGas when flaring during flow testing.

3.30pm: Evidence from Conor Vallelly, council planning witness

Mr Vallely, is an associate planner at the consultancy GVA. He began working for Cheshire West and Chester Council in October 2018.

Council policy on sustainability

Mr Vallelly says in his evidence:

“It is my opinion that the explanation to the policy is an important consideration as it makes clear the Council’s commitment to the national targets in relation to energy derived from renewable sources and the reduction of GHG.

“The importance to be attached to these considerations has, in my view, increased significantly since the Local Plan was adopted in January 2015. There are 2 key points in relation to the above, the first of which is that the Local Plan confirms that climate change and the reduction of GHG emissions is a very important issue to the Council.

“It could be argued that if the local plan was in the process of being re-written today there would be an even greater emphasis on this given the targets set out in the Paris Agreement and the sobering content of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC published on the 6 October 2018.

“The second point is that paragraph 8.67 of the Local Plan confirms the Council’s intention that it wishes to manage any adverse impacts that may be associated with the exploration, appraisal and production phases of alternative hydrocarbon energy fuels.

“To my mind that must mean that all adverse impacts should be managed including both unintentional and any process driven GHG emissions released from the production phase. I conclude that there is a very clear policy basis on which the Council and its members would expect to understand in a meaningful way, how GHG emissions can be properly mitigated for as part of the appeal proposals.”

Mr Vallelly says he defines mitigation as measures that, if applied could make an unacceptable scheme acceptable.

Robert Griffiths, barrister for the council, asks Mr Vallelly if he accepts the council’s decision to refuse permission. Mr Vallelly says he does support the decision.

“I came to the conclusion that the absence of information on mitigation was the reason for refusal and take the democratic decision to refuse. I do not see that as unreasonable. In the light of the many objections, they took their independent, arms-length view.”

Mr Vallelly says Cheshire’s supplementary planning document said individual applications would be considered on their own merits and would not take account of future hypothetical activities for which permission has not yet been sought. They would assessed against the effects of the exploration activity, including cumulative impacts.

Compatibility with other council evidence

IGas has argued that some of the council witness evidence is incompatible.

Mr Vallelly says he is a planner and not a scientist. He has written his evidence on the basis of his professional judgement, as have other council witnesses.

Climate change

Mr Vallelly says the scientific evidence on climate change before the inquiry is of public benefit. He acknowledges that the council planning committee did not have access to this information.

But the council report and minutes did refer to the Paris Agreement and the UK’s international climate commitments, Mr Vallelley says. He accepts that this issue was in the minds of the councillors.

Mr Vallelly says he accepts that government policy supports onshore oil and gas development. But he adds:

“It is my opinion however that the content of the 2016 Onshore Petroleum report by the CCC [Committee on Climate Change] and the most recent publication from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] provides a compelling case in the need for a ground shift in both the approach to future global energy supply and in ensuring that all stages of the processes to recover unconventional hydrocarbons utilise the strictest possible measures to minimise any impacts on climate change. This would be in line with the Precautionary Principle.”

He adds that it would be reasonable for information on emissions mitigation to have been provided to the Council.

“In the absence of this information and on the balance of the information I believe that there is a conflict with the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan Policy STRAT 1 as insufficient information has been provided to explain how this particular element of the proposals will help to mitigate the effects of climate change.

“I conclude that in terms of assessing the appeal proposals in planning terms it would be irrational to simply disregard the need for stringent mitigation of potential GHG emissions at the exploration stage simply because these were judged to be small scale in the context of the potential untapped shale gas resource.”

The effects of the appeal scheme, releasing methane and carbon dioxide that could be captured, are very serious, Mr Vallelly adds.

He says the IGas scheme could be considered to comply with local planning policy. But he says the scheme undermines the objective of not adding to greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Vallelly says

“In my professional opinion, the impact of the scheme in climate change terms is significant, cannot be underestimated and in the planning balance the councillors were justified in refusing the application.”

Local opinion

Mr Vallelly says he understands the level of opposition to the scheme and that public opinion is a material consideration. Mr Griffiths, for the council, asks what weight should be given to local public opinion on shale gas exploration.

Mr Vallelly replies:

“In the current climate, I would give very significant weight to the views of local people. That is not to say that the inspector should only consider these views but they should be given very serious consideration in determining this planning application.

“The force of those objections will have been in the mind of committee members when making their decision.”

Mr Vallelly says the view of MPs should be given equal weight to members of the public. But he says they represent hundreds of thousands of people and an MP’s opinion should be given weight by the inquiry.

The fact that three MPs are to give evidence to the inquiry is indicative of the importance of the scheme, sensitivity,and the emotion caused by it, Mr Vallelly says.

Economic benefit

Asked whether the social costs or economic benefits should be considered, Mr Vallelly says it is material to the inquiry.

“Shale gas development should not be undertaken at any environmental cost”

Mr Vallelly tells the inquiry:

“On reviewing the wider body of evidence, it is clear that appropriate mitigation at all stages of unconventional hydrocarbon exploration and extraction is essential to reduce the impacts of potential GHG release.

“There are a range of techniques and technologies available which have been brought into use particularly in the US and which are no doubt capable of implementation in the UK.

“Whist I am acutely aware of the content of national policy and guidance on facilitating the sustainable use of minerals, my view is that shale gas exploration should not be an exercise which is undertaken at any environmental cost.”

Advice of council officers

Planning officers at Cheshire West and Chester Council had recommended approval of the test scheme but members of the planning committee voted overwhelmingly to refuse.

Mr Vallelly says he sees no less or greater weight to be applied to this issue. My professional view is to assess all the evidence before the inquiry, he says.

Robert Griffiths, for the council, puts it to Mr Vallelly that the planning officers who recommended approval did not have the benefit of the evidence of Dr Balcombe and Dr Broderick, who had been witnesses to the inquiry. The members did not have any scientific input.

Mr Vallelly says he was not aware that the council had commissioned scientific advice.

Mr Griffiths asks whether the decision-making process is now different because there is scientific guidance. “That is self-evident”, Mr Vallelly replies.

Conditions and disagreement on question to witness

Mr Griffiths asks whether planning permission should be granted if IGas entered into an agreement to key issues. Mr Vallelly says the use of planning conditions would need to be considered at the relevant point of the inquiry. But he adds:

“I think the magnitude of the issues before the inquiry are wider than simply about the technique of the mitigation. They cover wider public issues.”

Brian Cook, the inspector, interrupts the evidence. He says:

“I will decide the application on whether it complies with the development plan. If a condition would prevent it conflicting with the council’s sustainability policy I would be in a position to say that it would accord with the development plan and should be approved unless material considerations outweigh this.”

He asks whether Mr Vallelly believes there are material considerations that outweigh compliance with the development plan.

Before Mr Vallelly can answer, Mr Griffiths says decisions have to be made with regard to the law. He says Mr Vallelly is not a position to answer a question with a legal context. He says:

“There are broader issues, in relations to international obligations, which need to be looked at very carefully.

“This is a highly important case of public interest that may have to be looked at in a different way to some other cases.

“International obligations raise serious issues of law that have to be considered.”

Responding to the issue of whether a condition could resolve objections, Mr Vallelly says:

“it would be improper of me to say it would be impossible”

He says there has been no discussion on the issue between the council and IGas.

Production timing

Asked when production at Ellesmere Port would be likely if well testing went ahead. Mr Vallelly says a planning application for production does not currently exist.

Asked if there were time limits attached to other regulations and permissions, Mr Vallelly says he understands they are unrestricted.

3.11pm: Break

The inquiry resumes at 3.30pm

2.44pm: Re-examination of Dr John Broderick, council witness

Robert Griffiths, the barrister for Cheshire West and Chester Council, asks Dr John Broderick, the climate change witness, why the IGas scheme is not climate mitigation. Dr Broderick says it will not reducing the extent of climate change and does not comply with the Paris Agreement.

Asked about the Mackay and Stone report on carbon emissions from shale gas developments, Dr Broderick says the report was useful at the time but is now five years old.

Dr Broderick says there are other technological developments that could provide energy needs without greenhouse gas emissions.

Government policy

Asked about government policy, Dr Broderick says:

“Our carbon budgets are too high for the commitments made in the Paris Agreement and our policy is not compatible with achieving the results.”

He adds that the UK needs to adopt low carbon technology much faster than the government policy allows.

“I think we should be planning for an almost decarbonised energy system within the next two decades.”

Asked why, he said:

“We have left it too late. We have been talking about this for decades and taking marginal steps.

“CO2 has been accumulating in the atmosphere and commits us to further warming. We face an urgent problem because we have used up our safe climate space. We have been emitting large volumes of CO2 from fossil fuel use for 200 years and now we need to be moving away from technologies that lead to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are technologies that are available to us.”

Mr Griffiths asks when would production take place at Ellesmere Port. Mid 2020s, Dr Broderick replies. He says:

“The mitigation challenge at the point in time would be more severe. We would have less safe climate space to us at that time. We would be moving to an even lower carbon economy.”

Dr Broderick says

“It is less likely that a subsequent application [for production] would be approved.”

The Committee on Climate Change will present advice to the government in March in the light of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 report on emissions impacts, Dr Broderick says. He says he expects the CCC to set a net zero carbon target for 2050 and quicker reductions than are being considered now. He says he does not want to prejudge the government’s response.

1.42pm: Cross-examination of Dr John Broderick, council witness

[Apologies for the break in updates 1.40-2.30pm because of connection problems]

Giles Cannock, the barrister for IGas, puts it to Dr John Broderick, a climate change witness for the council, that decision-makers should not take account of the effects of production for an exploration application because they will be assessed in a separate application.

Dr Broderick accepts that this is a collect reflection of the document.

“I can see how it could be part of a planning system”

Mr Cannock asks when Dr Broderick was appointed by the council. November 2018, says Dr Broderick.

Dr Broderick says he understands the reasoning of the planning committee.

He says he does not know whether the reasoning is consistent with his evidence.

Dr Broderick considers that the impact of production are relevant to the appeal.

He agrees that he concludes that an expansion of shale gas production is not consistent with climate change mitigation. Any fossil source of CO2 has a warming effect on the climate. Temperature stabilisation requires net zero emissions, Dr Broderick says.

Dr Broderick agrees that any increase in emissions from an oil or gas site should be balanced by a reduction in emissions elsewhere. He accepts that he has not identified a source of emissions that should be reduced.

He says there is an imperative not to explore or produce extra oil or gas. The IGas scheme is not compatible with the Paris Agreement, he adds.

You can’t tell me whether these arguments formed part of the reasoning of the planning committee, Mr Cannock asks. No, says Dr Broderick. Robert Griffiths, the barrister for the council, says it is an absurd proposition that IGas is arguing that the inquiry must establish what was in the minds of the committee. Mr Cannock says there are irreconcilable inconsistencies between evidence of the council witnesses. He says he is not suggesting the inquiry needs to establish what was in the minds of the councillors. I am trying to establish what is the case – if any – of this mineral planning authority, Mr Cannock says.

Government policy

Mr Cannock asks whether Dr Broderick accepts whether government policy is based on affordability and security of supply. Dr Broderick accepts that it is, though he says he may not agree with the basis of policy. We can have warmth with a lower security of supply with insulation, he says.

Dr Broderick confirms he believes government energy policy is contentious and is not compatible with the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Mr Cannock asks Dr Broderick whether the inspector should not apply government policy for these reasons.

Dr Broderick says the IGas scheme is not climate change mitigation. The council has rejected the scheme on the basis of climate change and there is an inconsistency in government policy on oil and gas development in relation to climate change, he says. The advice he would give that the rejection of the planning application is reasonable. Mr Cannock says I think the answer is ‘yes’. Dr Broderick

Government statements on shale gas

Mr Cannock reviews government statements on energy and climate change policy starting in 2011. In 2012, the government says gas would play a vital role in energy security, affordability and reducing carbon emissions.

Mr Cannock refers to government documents on shale gas deposits. He says emissions from exploration should be looked at in the context of the UK greenhouse gas inventory.

He also refers to a House of Lords report which concluded that shale gas emissions were equivalent to conventional gas and compatible with climate change commitments. The document says replacing home produced shale gas for LNG would make a positive contribution to climate change. Dr Broderick says that is reasonable for central estimates but does not capture all the examples.

Mr Cannock says the House of Lords concluded that exploration was an urgent national priority. Dr Broderick says the report was by the economic affairs committee and it was not looking at climate change.

Mr Cannock turns to a report by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, which called for a moratorium for fracking. He says a written ministerial statement in 2015 does not call for a moratorium. The government was not persuaded by the EAC report. No, Dr Broderick replies.

Mr Cannock says a 2016 report from the Committee on Climate Change acknowledges there will be some emissions from oil and gas developments, however tightly regulated. The government responded to the report, Mr Cannnock says. The government agrees there is uncertainty and the answer to uncertainty is about exploration. Dr Broderick replies:

“it depends on the uncertainty. If the uncertainty is about the bridge to a low carbon future then exploration is not the answer.”

Mr Cannock turns to the May 2018 written ministerial statement on energy policy. This significantly post-dates the Paris Agreement, he says. The document says there are benefits from developing UK onshore oil and gas, Mr Cannock says. It is the government’s position that they are considering consistency of policy with carbon budgets and international obligations, Mr Cannock says. Dr Broderick replies:

“That doesn’t mean that government policy is laid out to achieve obligations”

Mr Cannock puts it to Dr Broderick that every scenario by the Committee on Climate Change to meet carbon targets requires the use of gas. Dr Broderick says the scenarios were compiled before the Paris Agreement.

Mr Cannock says the WMS states that shale gas development is of national importance. The conclusion of the government is that shale gas is of national importance. That is the position of the government, Dr Broderick agrees. Mr Cannock says Dr Broderick’s position to phase out natural gas production is incompatible with government policy. Dr Broderick says there should be carbon budgets and timescales to phase out gas production.

1.40pm: Inquiry resumes

12.40pm: Lunch break

The inquiry resumes at 1.40pm

11.27am: Dr John Broderick gives evidence for the council

Dr Broderick is a lecturer at the University of Manchester, based at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

He says his area of expertise is carbon accounting.

He tells the inquiry that he has provided advice to the UK government, the International Energy Agency, European Parliament and House of Commons audit committee.

Shale gas and Paris Agreement

Dr Broderick says the Paris Agreement on climate change sets the rise in temperature increase since industrial times to below 2 degrees and attempt to limit the rise to 1.5 degrees.

He says

“Our approach to energy and climate policy should be working towards the goals that we have agreed to [in the Paris Agreement]”

Dr Broderick says under the Paris Agreement, developed nations would take the lead in the shift towards low carbon and would adopt more stringent targets than less developed nations.

The report on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in October 2018 has described the likely impact of temperature rise, Dr Broderick says. The UK government has ask the Committee on Climate Change to reconsider its advice on reaching emissions targets in the light of the IPCC report.

Dr Broderick says “there is a a very serious risk” of failing to reach reductions targets.

He says technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, “unreasonably lends support for the continued and long-term use of gas and oil”. But Dr Broderick says these technologies are still in technical development.

Urgent need to phase out fossil fuels

Dr Broderick says:

“An urgent programme to phase out natural gas and fossil fuels in the EU is an imperative of any scientific-informed and equity based policies.”

He says this was the conclusion of a study on carbon budgets he was involved in that was carried out before the IPCC report in October 2018.

The carbon budgets study concluded that fossil fuels should be phased out completely within two decades, he says.

“we have very little emissions space available to us to avoid temperature increases limited by the Paris Agreement. We have about two decades in which to move to a very low carbon economy.

“Any addition of greenhouse gases from this way forward deducts from our future safe emissions space”

Sustainability policy

Dr Broderick says he interprets Cheshire West and Chester’s sustainability policy to mean that it complies with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

Asked why the IGas scheme does not comply with the sustainability policy, Dr Broderick says the company is applying to explore with an objective of future production. He says it is targeting fossil fuels currently in the ground that should not be used if climate targets were to be met.

Robert Griffiths, for Cheshire West and Chester Council, puts it to Dr Broderick that the inquiry cannot consider production. Dr Broderick replies

“I can’t see what the purpose of exploration of hydrocarbons is if it is not to lead to production.”

Climate change mitigation

Mr Griffiths asks whether his view depends on the level of production. Dr Broderick there is already sufficient hydrocarbon resource available to exceed the international carbon budgets.

Dr Broderick says the movement of carbon from below to above the ground – through production of oil and gas – is causing more, not less, climate change.

The UK has historically seen as a climate change leader, immediately after the 2008 Climate Change Act. We are seen as technically competent and politically motivated to reduce emissions, Dr Broderick says.

“The Climate Change Act is very important. It includes a long-term target, a set of budgets that get you towards that long-term target. It has a scrutiny mechanism and a monitoring method.”

The government’s shale gas policy is contentious throughout the UK. He adds:

“mitigation is what we do to reduce our impact on the climate. Gas production is a deliberate act of moving carbon from below the ground to above the ground where it has a damaging effect on the climate.

“The exploration and production of additional reserves [of oil and gas] cannot be considered mitigation of climate change.

“It is not policy that determines whether something is mitigation. It is the physical nature of the act.”

Dr Broderick adds:

“Hydrocarbon production should not be considered climate change mitigation.”

Bridge fuel

Dr Brockerick says there will no relative benefits from shale gas displacing coal.

He says shale gas may be a bridge industry but it is important to specify the time period.

“The bridge arguments are made in very general times without quantifying the volumes or duration. Without these, I don’t find that a compelling argument”.

11.03am: Break

The inquiry resumes at 11.25am.

11.02am: Further questions from inspector on climate change

Brian Cook, the inquiry inspector, asks how emissions could be measured. Do you need an exploration phase to understand what would be emitted, he asks.

Dr Paul Balcombe, climate change witness for the council, agrees.

9.55am: Re-examination of Dr Paul Balcombe

Dr Paul Balcombe. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Robert Griffiths, the barrister for Cheshire West and Chester Council, reviews the evidence of the council’s climate change expert, Dr Paul Balcombe.

Mr Griffiths asks how long Dr Balcombe has been studying the burning of methane. Four years, says Dr Balcombe. In that time, Dr Balcombe says there is a greater work underway on methane flows. There is more understanding of what is not known.

Impact of methane on climate change

There is greater understanding of the effect of methane on the atmosphere, he says. Emissions are higher and methane has a greater effect than previously thought, Dr Balcombe says.

The forcing effect of methane – the warming effect of the gas on climate – is greater than previously thought, Dr Balcombe adds.

This makes it more important to mitigate, to avoid the venting of methane, he says.

Dr Balcombe says to get a better understanding of methane from gas exploration you would need a more accurate idea of flow rates.

There is very little evidence on this topic, Dr Balcombe says.

Mr Griffiths asks how do you develop a mitigation strategy without knowing the nature of the problem? Are we shooting n the dark at the moment, he asks. Dr Balcombe says the methane emissions do not need to be measured under the regulations. This means we don’t know what damage we are doing to the climate, Dr Balcombe says.

“I think we should be monitoring emissions because we don’t know how much is being emitted during exploration.”

Flares

Dr Balcombe says a shrouded ground flare, to be used in the drill stem test at Ellesmere Port, has an efficiency of around 65%. The enclosed flare for the extended well test has an efficiency of more than 99%. This means the extended well test flare would convert more of the methane to carbon dioxide.

Dr Balcombe says he would prefer gas not to be flared. Asked about the choice of flare, he says he can advise only on the decision to flare, not on the choice of flare.

Mr Griffiths says the Environment Agency considers the best available technique for disposing of waste gas is flaring. Dr Balcombe says there is not justification for this argument because the flow rate and composition of the gas is unknown.

Mr Griffiths says industry guidance requires operators to justify the use of an unenclosed flare. Dr Balcombe says IGas intends to use an unenclosed shrouded flare for the drill stem test. He repeats that the shrouded, unenclosed flare, will have a lower efficiency and therefore a greater impact on the environment.

Mr Griffiths says additional mitigation for unenclosed flares is recommended by industry guidance. Dr Balcombe accepts that IGas has not put forward this additional mitigation for the drill stem test.

Harnessing gas

It would be using the gas for a purpose, for electricity generation or to feed into the gas main, Dr Balcombe says. The principle is adopted but technical guidelines say this requires treatment plant and on-site generators.

Dr Balcombe says there would not be information on flow rates for the drill stem test. This would make harnessing more difficult. But he says harnessing could be used for the extended well test.

Barristers disagree

Giles Cannock, barrister for IGas, says this is not re-examination but a repeat of the examination in chief. Mr Griffiths says he is re-examining the witness on a document put to Dr Balcombe by Mr Cannock. Mr Griffiths says:

“The fact that you do no like an answer is not a reason for me to pursue it.”

Best available techniques

Mr Griffiths, barrister for Cheshire West and Chester Council, refers to 2016 guidance by the industry body, UK Onshore Oil and Gas.

This says enclosed flares provide the best performance for incinerating waste gases, Mr Griffiths says. But the guidance says shrouded flares would be considered if the operator showed that an enclosed flare was not suitable and there would not be a greater environmental impact. Dr Balcombe says he is not aware that this guidance has not been updated.

Dr Balcombe says he is not aware of any document which says flaring is the best available technique for dealing with waste gas.

UK shale gas climate impact

Dr Balcombe tells the inquiry that UK shale gas production is not complementary to the UK’s decarbonisation targets.

9.40am: Inspector’s questions to Dr Paul Balcombe

The inquiry inspector, Brian Cook (left), puts further questions to Dr Paul Balcombe, a climate change witness for Cheshire West and Chester Council.

Mr Cook asks what would be the effect of mitigation of emissions from the well test process. Dr Balcombe says the best mitigation would be to capture the gas by piping it into the main or using it to make electricity. The next best mitigation would be to flare the gas. The worst option would be to vent the gas.

Mr Cook asks how long has it been the consensus that the best process is to convert methane to carbon dioxide. Dr Balcombe says “as long as we have know about climate change”.

Mr Cook asks whether government policy was based on this understanding. Dr Balcombe says understanding of methane has improved in the past five years, particularly the increasingly powerful warming potential of methane.

The inspector asks how the emissions from flow testing would compare with those from the motorway passing the site. Dr Balcombe says the emissions from cars are of a different type to those from an oil site. The inspector says he is trying to understand how long it would take traffic on the motorway to put the equivalent amount of carbon into the atmosphere.

9.34am: Statement from Cllr Matt Bryan

Cllr Matt Bryan (left) giving evidence to the inquiry

Cllr Bryan, a member of Cheshire West and Chester Council, says he is representing his residents in his Upton ward, not the council. He says he opposes IGas’s proposed operation at Ellesmere Port

He says IGas drilled 1000m+ deeper at the Ellesmere Port well than it said it would. This had led to stress and anxiety among residents, he says.

“Whilst this may not form a material planning objection it goes some way to show just one of dozens I could talk about which indicates why my community and other communities quite frankly do not trust this unsavoury cowboy outfit.

He reads statements issued by Cheshire West and Chester Council about the depth of drilling. The council said it had asked regulators to look into the issue and would consider what action to take.

Cllr Bryan says:

“To my knowledge no coherent response was received from the appropriate regulator although when I first spotted this I contact the British Geological Survey and they said it was nothing to do with them.

“I was then told by the head of planning that it wouldn’t be expedient to take action and ‘I shouldn’t use the planning process to batter my opponents around the head'”

Cllr Bryan adds:

“Climate change threatens our very existence.

“Science is moving fast and government policy is important but great weight must be placed on international obligations and policy, which our government is moving towards rapidly.

“Action is needed now and I implore the inspector to make the wholly justified decision to reject this appeal.

Giles Cannock, barrister for IGas, asks Cllr Bryan whether he accepts the statement of common ground on the well depth. Cllr Bryan says he does not agree with the statement. Mr Cannock says the council’s case officer dealt with the issue of well depth at the planning committee meeting in January 2018. Cllr Bryan says his concerns are well documented.

9.30am: Inquiry opens

Inquiry chairman, Brian Cook, opens the second day of the inquiry.

Reporting at this inquiry has been made possible by donations from individual DrillOrDrop readers

Gas flares at Cuadrilla’s fracking site at Preston New Road near Blackpool, 2 November 2018. Photo: Cuadrilla Resources

A publicity video used by Cuadrilla as evidence of the first shale gas production from its site in Lancashire may not be quite what it seemed.

The company sent up a drone to film a burning flare stack at the site near Blackpool in early November 2018.

It released the news to the media, describing the development as “significant” and “a good early indication of the gas potential that we have long talked about”. The pro-fracking group, Lancashire for Shale, said the gas flow was a “real credit to the expertise and tenacity of Cuadrilla”.

But an official document released this week reveals that the volume of gas reaching the surface at Preston New Road at the time was so low that the company had to feed in propane as a support fuel to light the flare.

Opponents of Cuadrilla’s operation had been sceptical about the 12-second video and the volume of gas in the well.

This week, the Environment Agency confirmed that the volume of gas coming to the surface was “very low” and that the day before the video was released methane was released unburnt into the atmosphere.

Extract from Environment Agency report, 2 November 2018

The details are in a report of a site inspection by the Environment Agency on 2 November 2018. The document, called a Compliance Assessment or CAR report, said:

“On the 1st November gas was sent to the flare from the separator. The gas was not burnt at the flare on this occasion due to the very low volume of natural gas. The gas was picked up on the onsite monitoring instruments at very low levels (5ppm over ten minute period).

“We acknowledge that the level of methane detected was significantly below anything that would have an impact on human health or constitute a risk of explosion and there was no environmental impact. Gas was managed in this way for safety purposes and does not constitute a breach of the permit.

“On the morning of 2nd November gas was again sent to the flare from the separator. On this occasion a support fuel (propane) was used to assist combustion. There was no visible increase in methane emissions on the boundary monitoring equipment.”

DrillOrDrop asked Cuadrilla what were the volumes or proportions of shale gas and support fuel burned in the flare on 2 November 2018. We also asked why Cuadrilla had not mentioned the support fuel in the press release and how long the company had continued to use a support fuel in the flare.

A spokesperson for the company said:

“As you are aware, we are now in the flow testing phase at Preston New Road and will look to publish results in due course. We are very encouraged by what we are seeing but are not providing a daily commentary on testing.”

The campaign group, Frack Free Lancashire, said today:

“It would seem that Cuadrilla’s woeful PR campaign has fallen flat on its face yet again. In November, desperate for some good news after provoking a series of earthquakes, they published a video showing the flaring of gas from their first well.

“Widely ridiculed at the time, as it only lasted a few seconds before being seen to have petered out, we now learn that far from being a “significant” find, this gas flow was so weak that they had to add patio gas to it to make it burn. No further comment is really needed, is it?”

There are several options for dealing with gas during flow testing. It can be piped into the gas grid – as Cuadrilla plans to do during the extended well test at Preston New Road. It can also be flared or – usually in emergencies – vented to the atmosphere.

The Environment Agency said in the CAR report:

“We are currently reviewing what is best practice including the benefits of using a support fuel to assist the combustion of very low levels of natural gas against the management of natural gas without combustion through the flare.”

Preston New Road, 21 November 2018. Photo: Ros Wills

The gas flow press release came after a difficult fortnight for Cuadrilla.

By 2 November 2018, fracking at Preston New Road had already caused more than 30 earth tremors.

The company’s Australian partner, the mining group A J Lucas, had seen its share price fall since the start of fracking on 15 October 2018. By 2 November, the price had dropped from 0.39 to 0.26 Australian dollars.

Cuadrilla’s chief executive, Francis Egan, told the Financial Times on 30 October that UK rules on fracking-induced seismicity – known as the traffic light system – were too strict. The country’s shale gas industry could be strangled, he said.

He called for an urgent raising of the limit at which fracking should pause from 0.5ML (local magnitude) to 2.0ML.

But the energy minister, Claire Perry, responded on 31 October that this would be “foolish” while the government was trying to “reassure people about safety”.

Extract from a letter by Claire Perry to Francis Egan, 2 November 2018

It has since emerged that she also wrote to Mr Egan on 2 November, saying:

“I note that your Hydraulic Fracture Plan was developed and reviewed over several months with reference to existing regulations, including the traffic light system and at no point did you communicate that it would not be possible to proceed without a change in regulations”.

The hearing in Chester is expected to last six or seven days. It will hear from representatives of IGas, Cheshire West and Chester Council, the campaign group, Frack Free Ellesmere Port & Upton and local people.

Reporting at this inquiry has been made possible by donations from individual DrillOrDrop readers

Key points

Discussion on whether inspector should recuse himself because of connections with IGas consultant

“Gas is a fossil fuel. It is a climate generator. Your fight here is crucial” – Nathalie Bennett, Green Party

Flaring dismissed as best available technique for dealing with waste gas – council witness

IGas should have considered collecting waste gas, rather than flaring – council expert

Decision-makers should take account of the social cost of emissions from the onshore oil and gas industry – council

Government support for shale gas does not mean that exploration must be permitted in the wrong location – Frack Free Ellesmere Port & Upton

Emissions left after mitigation are the inevitable impacts of exploration – IGas

5.28pm: Inquiry closes for the day

The inquiry resumes at 9.30am on 16 January 2019

5.25pm: Questions from the inspector to Dr Paul Balcombe

The inspector, Brian Cook, asks what Dr Paul Balcombe, climate change for Cheshire West and Chester Council, was comparing the emissions to when he said he was surprised. Dr Balcombe says there are hard to find figures for exploration emissions figures.

Every other exploration well may generate the same amount, Mr Cook says. This may not be exceptional at all, Mr Cook suggests. Dr Balcombe agrees.

4.06pm: Cross-examination continues of Dr Paul Balcombe

Emissions

Giles Cannock, for IGas, puts it to Dr Paul Balcombe, an expert witness for the council on climate change, that appropriate mitigation techniques should be employed where practical. Dr Balcombe agrees.

Mr Cannock refers to the report by the Committee on Climate Change that says extraction of shale gas at scale does not comply with UK climate targets unless three tests are met. Dr Balcombe says there is ambiguity in the definition of production in the CCC report.

Mr Cannock says the three tests do no apply to exploration. He adds that strict monitoring and mitigation meets one of the CCC tests. The government argues that all the tests will be met, Mr Cannock adds.

Dr Balcombe says methane emissions during exploration have had less attention than needed. Two of the three tests are relevant to production, Dr Balcombe agrees.

Mr Cannock puts it to Dr Balcombe that using the gas would comply with industry guidelines and national policy. Dr Balcombe agrees.

Robert Griffiths, barrister for Cheshire West and Chester Council, says the line of cross examination in unfair because Dr Balcombe is not a planning or policy witness. Mr Cannock says he is testing the relevance of the evidence and whether the application is best available techniques.

The inspector, Brian Cook, says Dr Balcombe’s evidence is that IGas has not done enough so it is not unreasonable to examine where this requirement is set out.

Mr Cannock asked whether Dr Balcombe looked at Environment Agency guidance on onshore oil and gas. Dr Balcombe says he looked at UKOOG guidance and the application. He says he assessed the emissions levels, which were surprisingly high and had not been mitigated.

Mr Cannock says the Environment Agency and the Mineral Planning Authority considered IGas has provided enough information on flaring. Dr Balcombe says he can’t answer that question. Mr Cannock says the EA concluded that the information was adequate and that flaring was best available technique.

Proposed mitigation techniques

Giles Cannock, for IGas, refers to gas capture for use in the gas main or for generating electricity. Mr Cannock mentions a range of options to mitigate emissions. He says industry guidelines say flaring is the preferred option at exploration. Dr Balcombe says it may be practicable to use the gas during exploration:

“You’re saying that flaring is always the preferred option but that is not how I read it”

Mr Cannock asked Dr Balcombe whether he was qualified to design a methane capture scheme. Dr Balcombe said he was not.

Dr Balcombe says he does not see enough consideration of other mitigation techniques. Mr Cannock asks what could be done to mitigate emissions. He says IGas argues that capturing the gas is not technically feasible.

On the extended well test, Mr Cannock asked whether Dr Balcombe had carried out an extended well test. No Dr Balcombe says. Mr Cannock asks whether a wild cat well had captured gas during a well. Dr Balcombe says it may not always be practicable to do it but it must be feasible or it would not be referred to in best available technique guidance. He concedes he is not aware of gas capture during a 14-day well test.

Carbon footprints

Using the Ellesmere Port gas to generate electricity or in the gas grid would displace other gas, Mr Cannock suggests. Dr Balcombe agrees.

4.05pm Inquiry resumes

3.50pm Break

The inquiry resumes at 4.05pm.

3.15pm: Cross-examination of Dr Paul Balcombe

Reasons for refusal

Giles Cannock, for IGas, asks Dr for Paul Balcombe,the climate change for Cheshire West and Chester Council about the reasons given for refusing the planning application in January 2018.

Mr Cannock says Dr Balcombe raised concerns about air quality, traffic, hydraulic fracturing and waste water treatment but they were not given as reasons for refusal. They are irrelevant to the inquiry, Mr Cannock says.

Mr Cannock says the council refused the application because the scheme failed to mitigates the effects on climate change. Dr Balcombe says the climate effects of the scheme are non-negligible.

Dr Balcombe rejects the suggestion that the council is arguing that development is not inappropriate on the site with added mitigation. Mr Cannock says IGas complies with the local plan if there is adequate mitigation and the application should be approved.

Mr Cannock asks Dr Balcombe whether he know why the planning committee refused permission. Dr Balcombe says he interpreted the rationale for refusal might be and provided evidence for them. He says he looked into any climate change impacts of the flow test and any subsequent production.

Exploration versus production

Mr Cannock puts it to Dr Balcombe that potential production effects should not be taken into account at the exploration phase. Dr Balcombe agrees. Mr Cannock says production may not take place and would be subject to a separate application.

The inquiry is not concerned with any future hypothetical application for production, Mr Cannock puts it to Dr Balcombe. He agrees.

2.17pm: Council evidence – Dr Paul Balcombe on climate change

Dr Paul Balcombe. Photo: DrillOrDrop

Robert Griffiths for Cheshire West and Chester Council, introduces his first climate change witness, Dr Paul Balcombe, a Research Fellow at the Sustainable Gas Institute (SGI), Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College, London.

Dr Balcombe tells the inquiry that his evidence focusses on the collection of natural gas emissions from the well during the flow test.

IGas plans “not best practice”

He says he does not believe that IGas decision to flare gas from the well during the flow test is best practice. He says other options have not been given proper consideration.

Dr Balcombe says he was surprised at the volume of emissions and that there had not been more effort in collecting them. He says he understands the cost of collecting emissions need to be taken into account.

He says he calculated methane and carbon dioxide emissions from flaring the gas using the potential flow rate and the duration of the flow tests. This was information available from IGas documents and evidence, he says.

When we are talking about kilo tonnes of C02 equivalent, they are substantial quantities, Dr Balcombe says.

“We have not seen a total greenhouse gas emissions. I am concerned about the lack of consideration.”

He says the IGas flow test would amount to 1.6% of annual industrial emissions in Cheshire West and Chester in 2016. It is a significant figure, he says.

The best option is to collect the gas and use it for a purpose. The second best is to flare the gas and the worst option is to vent it, Dr Balcombe says.

In this situation, Dr Balcombe says, it is technically feasible to collect the gas and it should be considered.

He says IGas argued that the collection of natural gas was not feasible. That is not wholly correct, Dr Balcombe says.

“More attention should be given to collecting gas”

Information from the 14-day drill stem test could be used to inform collection of gas during the 60-day extended well test.

“Given the size of the emissions, more attention should be given to collecting the gas, rather than using the high efficiency flare.”

Dr Balcombe says there is just one paragraph in the evidence on this issue.

He says only very small quantities of methane need to be emitted for there to be a serious climate impact. The shrouded flare, to be used during the drill stem test, is 65% efficient so 35% of the methane is emitted into the atmosphere, rather than burned.

Over 12 years, this methane is 120 times more powerful in climate warming terms than carbon dioxide, he says. Over a 100-year-period, methane is 35 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

Methane emitted to the atmosphere is eventually converted into carbon dioxide which lasts for thousands of years. 1kg of methane converts into about 2.2kg of carbon dioxide.

“Emissions from the flow tests are significant. They should not be swept under the carpet.”

Dr Balcombe says he was surprised by the quantity of emissions from the flow test.

“They were certainly larger than I expected.”

IGas could feed the gas into the grid or use it to generate electricity, Dr Balcombe says.

Asked to respond to the IGas argument that the emissions are the inevitable consequence of exploration, Dr Balcombe says:

“I understand the trade off between emissions and cost. Given these high emissions, it warrants more money spent on it.”

“IGas underestimated social cost of emissions”

Dr Balcombe says IGas has underestimated the social cost of the emissions. This is the effect of climate change on people, he says.

“Decision-makers should take into account the social cost of emissions because climate change is the most important issue of our time.”

Asked to respond to the argument that the emissions from the IGas test would be a “drop in the ocean”, Dr Balcombe says all drops in the ocean mount up.

The inspector, Brian Cook, suggests the questioning is becoming a philosophical debate on climate change. Mr Griffiths, for the council, says it is important not to make assumptions about evidence.

Role of UK shale gas on decarbonisation

Dr Balcombe says it should not be assumed that domestic shale gas developments would not materially assist the UK’s decarbonisation. The argument by supporters of shale argue that UK shale gas would help to phase out coal and reduce LNG imports.

Dr Balcombe says coal has largely been replaced. He says there is an argument to offset imported LNG. Current understanding is that emissions from the supply of domestically produced gas should have a lower carbon footprint of imported LNG, he says.

On the IGas proposal, there is potential to mitigate more emissions than planned by capturing and using the gas, particularly for the extended well test.

“There is an increasing requirement on industry and citizens to assess and reduce their emissions.

“It is an obligation on industry to lead to mitigate more and more. I see it elsewhere in the natural gas industry in the UK across the supply chain but I don’t see it here.”

Every effort is needed to eliminate emissions, Dr Balcombe says.

2.15pm: Inquiry resumes

1.16pm: Break for lunch

The inquiry resumes at 2.15pm

1.13pm: Response from IGas

Giles Cannock says the proposed operations were set out in the waste management plan. Not in the planning document, Ms Dehon replied.

Mr Cannock says the company is not permitted to use hydrofluoric acid.

He adds that the company will discuss the description of the application.

12.45pm: Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton opening statement

Estelle Dehon, for Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton (FFEP&U) says the site, 320m from local residences and 50m from local businesses is not sustainable development.

She says it is in breach of several local planning policies.

Ms Dehon says the two wards closest to the proposed shale gas site – Rossmore and Ellesmere Port Town – are ranked amongst the 10% most deprived in the UK. Local people are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of the proposed development. IGas has not considered these impacts, she says.

The operation

Ms Dehon accepts that IGas is not proposing to frack. But she says the company has intended to use both an acid wash and acid squeeze. This would involve of up to 95m3 of acid – either hydrochloric or the more toxic hydrofluoric acid.

She says the description of the planning application are “hopelessly vague”.

“The failure to to specify the proposed extraciton method is very troubling.”

It means, Ms Dehon says, that although IGas says it will not intend acid stimulation but this would be permitted. The environmental permit does not permit fracking but it does not prevent acid squeeze.

The use of the word “deminimis” means only that the acid will be used near the wellbore, Ms Dehon says.

Community concern

Ms Dehon says the original planning permission for drilling at Ellesmere Port was for coalbed methane.

But later, IGas told the council the ultimate target for the well would be into the Bowland Shale.

IGas was crystal clear with the Environment Agency that it would drill through and beyond the coal measures.

But in July 2014 it told the community

“We will be drilling an exploratory well at the Ellesmere Port site. The primary objective of this well is to identify the resource potential including coal bed methane in the underlying rock formations”

A brochure had not one word about shale gas, Ms Dehon says.

“IGas told the community it was exploring for coal bed methane when in actuality the primary objective of the well was to drill to explore for shale gas

“That is why the community is very concerned that this planning permission properly describe the process that IGas is telling the council and the inspector how that it wishes to undertake”

Ms Dehon says the short exploration term does not avoid the impacts explained by witness. It is IGas relies on the benefits of production to make its case, she says.

Policy

Ms Dehon says FFEP&U accepts there is national government support for shale gas exploration. The group does not challenge this policy support.

“But that does not mean that shale gas exploration must be permitted in the wrong location, so close to residences and neighbouring businesses, in a vulnerable area and in a cul-de-sac that makes emergency response very difficult. The policies supporting shale gas do not mean that every application for shale gas exploration does through on the nod.”

IGas has not “bothered even to calculate the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions. It seeks only to sidestep the climate change issue”, Ms Dehon says.

But the climate change impact cannot be sidestepped, she says.

“The Secretary of State in the recent Talk Fracking challenge told the High Court that the appropriate place for the consideration of evidence of the impact of shale gas development on climate change and the environment is in local planning decisions”.

IGas has not called a climate change expert or calculated the emissions of the proposal. “That is entirely the wrong approach”, Ms Dehon says.

IGas assumes that the permit is the “great panacea”. But that is wrong in the group’s opinion.

“The EA specifically said it was not going to deal with public health impacts, particularly those arising from social harm and stress. Those are issues for you, sir.”

The EA made its assessment based on the impact on people living 500m+ away. That has changed, Ms Dehon says. The way conditions have changed on the ground are planning issues for the inquiry to deal with.

If the permit allows for matrix acidisation, then unless the description is changed or a condition is added, that is what you have to address.

“The local community has said a resounding no to the proposed development. The opposition is not ill-informed, or ignorant or knee-jerk, as some have attempted to characterise it.

“FFEP&U’s experts witnesses will show that the proposed development is simply in the wrong place and, in light of its adverse impacts, is not acceptable in planning terms.”

12 noon: Council opening statement

Robert Griffiths, for Cheshire West and Chester Council, begins his opening statement by referring to evidence for IGas that shale gas development is compatible with climate change.

This IGas evidence does not explain how the Ellesmere Port well test plan would be a climate change mitigation, Mr Griffiths says.

We say it is important to establish the range of emissions that are compatible with meeting the Paris Agreement.

Shale gas development should not be regarded as a climate change mitigation, Mr Griffiths says. Parliamentary committees and reports have already pointed this out, he adds.

There is no consensus on unconventional gas production in the UK. This is a paradox, he says, in a representative democracy.

“We are not aware that there is different science across the UK.

“If Chester had become part of Wales, the outcome of this inquiry would be very different.

For the UK to operate on inconsistent principles in different parts of the country is bordering on the absurd. The government of the UK should adopt a scientifically consistent approach to the future of our planet.

Mr Griffiths says the emissions from the well test are not small, as IGas claims.

Recent events, including the IPCC report in October 2018, should be taken into account, Mr Griffiths says.

The Paris Agreement cannot lawfully be ignored by the Secretary of State nor the inspector, Mr Griffiths adds.

Mr Griffiths says:

Climate change is a serious threat to society and ecosystems.

We take the view that reliance on environmental permits by IGas is no answer for this inquiry. The appellant’s case is that the Environment Agency did not object. The EA is not a planning authority and the permit is just licence to operate, not a planning permission.

It is necessary to identify those areas of responsibility for the planning authority. The failure to do that results in unlawful decision making.

Key part of the case

Mr Griffiths says the permission was refused because the application did not mitigate or adapt to the effects of climate change or make best use of renewable energy, against the requirements of the local plan.

The council is calling two witnesses on climate change: John Broderick, of the Tyndall Centre and . Paul Balcombe of Imperial College. Dr Broderick says IGas has failed to justify that the proposal meets with the Cheshire local plan.

Dr Balcombe says the tests would generate 1.6% of Cheshire West’s industrial emissions. He will argue that IGas is not using best practice and the UK shale gas industry is not complementary to UK climate efforts, Mr Griffiths says.

It is vital that any fossil fuel exploration should be accompanied by

“Industrial leadership is what is lacking here. The oil and gas industry needs to get its act together and not put responsibility on local authorities.”

Mr Griffiths adds:

“The appellant has misunderstood the volumes of emissions. It has wrongly characterised the emissions as low. This was an assumption that the Committee on Climate Change has said should not be given.

“This development has not taken the climate change reason for refusal seriously.”

IGas cannot be bothered to mitigate the emissions because it would be too costly to do so.”

The intuitive judgement of the councillors has been corroborated by two distinguished scientists, Mr Griffiths. The perception of government policy may be that the Secretary of State will just flag it through. That is reckless, Mr Griffiths says. Scientific fact can outweigh outdated government policy.

Good mitigation should be at the heart of all shale gas schemes, Mr Griffiths says. This should not be ignored because of cost or expediency.

Statement on conflict of interest -Inspector’s employment in RPS

Mr Griffiths says two witnesses used by IGas work or did work, for the environmental consultancy, RPS, the same company that employed the inspector for three years.

As a matter of law, the conflict of interest is not limited to actual bias but extends to a perception of bias. It appears that the inspector does not have any director or financial interest in RPS. But the conflict of interest can be a mindset for the way the decision-maker comes to a conclusion. The pre-inquiry note points to a pre-disposition to accept the appellants case and the inspector appears to want to avoid addressing some issues, Mr Griffiths says. He adds:

“There does remain some doubt about the inspector’s position. We are confident that doubt can be removed when we come to share the evidence as the inquiry gets going and independently grapples with the issues.

“We do not make any submission that the inspector should recuse himself from the inquiry.”

The inspector, Brian Cook, says Mr Griffith’s statement on impartiality sounds like “having your cake and eating it”. He says most inquiries employ someone who has worked for RPS.

“If I recused myself from inquiries where someone has worked for RPS I might as well resign”

Mr Cook says he did not buy shares in RPS and had no interest in the company.

Giles Cannock, for IGas, says he does not call for the inspector to recuse himself from the inquiry. We can be clear for the record that there is no point being taken, Mr Cannock says. He asks the council to confirm that any concerns on impartiality can be addressed by calling of evidence.

Robert Griffiths says any doubts about impartiality can be addressed when the evidence is heard.

Mr Cook says he will not recuse himself.

“I am astonished that you would think that I had predetermined issues.”

11.39am: Discussion on pre-inquiry note

Robert Griffiths, for Cheshire West and Chester Council, refers to a pre-inquiry note distributed by the inspector.

He says the inquiry raises important issues.

He says the hearing must take into account national and local policy guidance but also issues relevant to the public interest.

The inspector must take into account evidence submitted at the inquiry on policy and scientific facts, Mr Griffiths says. This includes the fact that shale gas development is harmful to climate change.

Mr Griffiths says the council was surprised that the inspector did not expect to spend time on these issues.

“We have to say at the outset that this would not be a proper approach.”

It is the council’s case that the reduction of global warming should be given utmost weight.

“These are issues that cannot be sidestepped or avoid. They are at the heart of this case.”

Mr Griffiths says there is an important distinction between a definition of an issue and determination of an issue. Determining an issue in advance, there is a risk of unlawful pre-determination.

“It looks as if a decision-maker has already made up his mind before hearing the evidence.”

The inspector’s note said it was not clear how evidence by Dr Broderick for the council could e accommodated.

Brian Cook, the inspector, says he is “slightly alarmed” that it is suggested that he had pre-judged the issue. Mr Cook says:

“My role is to ensure the efficient running of this inquiry in everyone’s interests.

“The purpose of my pre-inquiry note was not preclude you from making your points.

If I am to consider a criticism of government policy I need to be clear why you have asked me to take this into account.”

Mr Griffiths says statements on the relevance of evidence before hearing it is a pre-determination. He says to the inspector:

“Your pre-inquiry note casts doubt on your willingness to consider the evidence of two expert witnesses on climate change.”

Broad propositional statements can be misinterpreted, he says.

The council does not accept that the inspector’s note on accepting national policy. Mr Griffiths says:

“We do not accept that you cannot look at those policies with an open mind, considering when they were made, compatibility with other policies and a treaty signed by the government.”

They have the potential to raise issues of major legal significance, Mr Griffiths says.

11.38am: Inquiry resumes

Brian Cook, the inspector, explains that he shook the hand of a member of the IGas team who he had previously worked with.

11.20am: Break

The inquiry resumes at 11.35am.

10.43am: IGas opening case

Giles Cannock, for IGas, presents his opening case.

He says the company submitted an application to Cheshire West and Chester Council to test its Ellesmere Port well. The application was refused and the company has no choice but to appeal, he says.

The well was drilled in 2014, Mr Cannock, says, following planning permission granted in 2010. He says the well was drilled in accordance with the conditions of the permission.

Drilling permisison

Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton are unhappy about the way the well was drilled, he says. (The company had said it was exploring for coalbed methane but drilled about 900m deeper into the Bowland shale.

The council attended during the drilling and did not object, Mr Cannock says. The council confirmed the conditions were met and there were no complaints, Mr Cannock adds.

Site

The site is in an industrial area, called Portside, Mr Cannock says. The application is a temporary operation in an industrial area, he says. Claims of unacceptable landscape impacts are difficult to countenance, he says. This is not an Environmental Impact Assessment development, he says.

Operation

Mr Cannock says there will be no additional drilling, hydraulic fracturing or matrix acidisation. The development proposes to flow test the well.

Well test equipment will be mobilised, he says, including a workover rig. This is expected to take seven days.

A 14-day drill stem test is standard industry operation. Gas released from the well will be diverted to a flare, Mr Cannock says.

A dilute acid solution is pumped into the well. This is also standard oilfield practice and similar to that used in water wells. It is known as an acid wash or acid squeeze. It is not matrix acidisation. It is considered deminimis by the Environment Agency. Gas would be diverted to a shrouded flare.

If the DST is successful, the workover rig and other equipment will be removed. A 60-day extended well test would then take place. Once the flow rates have stabilised, the shrouded flare will be replaced by an enclosed flare.

After the extended well test, the equipment would be removed over seven days.

Planning policy

Mr Cannock says the National Planning Policy Framework requires decisionmakers to consider whether the proposal is a suitable use of land.

Regulations controlled by the regulators should not be revisited and left to other agencies, Mr Cannock says. These regulators include the Environment Agency (EA), Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

The HSE is responsible for well design, well integrity. The EA is responsible for waste management.

The scope of the planning system is fundamentally important to the decision of this appeal. The council and campaign group have produced evidence that is dealt with by other regulators and are not relevant to the inquiry, Mr Cannock says.

Planning application

Mr Cannock says the original planning application had been recommended for approval. Despite this, the council’s planning committee refused permission. The grounds given were that it failed to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Mr Cannock says there is no conflict with the national or all but one element of local planning policy. There is a lot of common ground with the council, Mr Cannock says.

Main issue: emissions

Mr Cannock says the key issue is the emissions of gas burned in the flare during the flow test.

The proposal complies with existing national policies, which set out the importance of onshore oil and gas supplies.

The written ministerial statement of May 2018 states the role of gas to meet the UK’s climate commitments, Mr Cannock says. All scenarios include a demand for gas, he says. The UK could be importing 70% of gas by 2030. Domestic gas resources should be used to a maximum where it is economically efficient and the environmental impacts are regulated.

The UK has gold standard regulations, to ensure that shale gas can be extracted safely, Mr Cannock says. Shale gas is of national importance and mineral planning authorities should give great weight to the benefits of domestically-produced gas.

It is not the role for the inquiry to debate national policy but for you to apply it, Mr Cannock says. He adds:

Emissions left after mitigation are the inevitable impacts of exploration and they must be deemed acceptable because of the government’s strong support for the industry.

Mr Cannock says evidence from the council on climate change is outside the scope of the inquiry and is inconsistent with the authority’s air quality evidence.

This suggests the refusal was flawed, Mr Cannock says. The mitigation of emissions are not a matter for the local authority because they were considered by the Environment Agency and considered to be best available technique.

The council did not object or request further details on the emissions issue. It is irrational to refuse permission because councillors wanted to see information they had never asked for, Mr Cannock says.

IGas disagrees that there is an acceptable mitigation scheme – capture of the gas – as proposed by the council, Mr Cannock says. We deny that a condition on this mitigation meets planning policy, Mr Cannock adds.

Mr Cannock says some Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton witnesses believe the scheme will involve hydraulic fracturing. It is not fracking, Mr Cannock says, and the operation is controlled by the permit. The use of acid is to restore natural permeability.

Mr Cannock says:

IGas does not consider that to be stimulation. It is not matrix acidisation because it is not targetting the rock formation. Matrix acidisation is prohibited by the permit. The inquiry does not need to waste time on this issue.

The Frack Free Ellesmere Port and UPton concerns over fracturing and matrix acidisations could be met by conditions, Mr Cannock says.

The company is prepared to discuss an amendment to the description of the application to allay concerns.

When the application is understood it should be approved with conditions, Mr CAnnock says.

10.36am: Evidence documents

Giles Cannock, for IGas, complains that the company received a box of core documents from Cheshire West and Chester Council on Thursday last week.

The IGas team had not been able to go through the documents, Mr Cannock says. He asks the inspector not to accept this evidence. If it is to be accepted then the IGas team needs more time to consider it, he says.

The inspector, Brian Cook, says he has not seen the documents either. He says the documents are the appendices to the proofs of evidence. He adds he has asked for them to be printed out and produced to the inquiry.

Robert Griffiths, for the council, says the documents are all referred to in the evidence submitted already.

Mr Cook says the inquiry will “play it by ear”.

10.32am: Key issues

Brian Cook sets out the key issues for the inquiry to decide:

Does the application contribute to sustainable development?

Is the climate change impact acceptable and does the proposal adapt to and mitigate climate change?

Would the proposed development have an unacceptable effect on:

human health and wellbeing

landscape and residential amenity

noise, air, water, highways

biodiversity

10.24am: Update on plans

Giles Cannock, for IGas, says a letter dated yesterday refers to a revised set of alternative plans.

IGas plans submitted at the time of the application are acceptable and it is happy to rely on them, he says.

Mr Cannock says the Health and Safety Executive has concerns about the proximity of the site to a neighbouring explosives facility.

This could be resolved by moving habitable buildings, including two tool stores, on the site outside the zone of concern, he says. These changes are set out in alternative plans to the inquiry, Mr Cannock says. This is a modest proposed change, he adds.

Robert Griffiths, for the council, and Estelle Dehon, for the Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton, say they don’t want to make a response.

The UK’s first public inquiry on the impact of an onshore gas site on climate change gets underway this morning.

The hearing on proposals by IGas to test for gas in Ellesmere Port is also the first in the UK where the well site is in a town or city.

A government-appointed inspector will hear evidence from Cheshire West and Chester Council, which refused planning permission in January 2018 because the scheme failed to mitigate the effect on climate change.

The inquiry will also hear evidence from the campaign group, Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton, which is calling nine expert witnesses. Representatives of IGas will also give evidence.

The hearing, at Chester Town Hall, is expected to last six or seven days.

The Ellesmere Port well is one of several drilled in north west England, where IGas companies said they were exploring for coalbed methane but actually drilled down into the shale layers.

IGas will say it plans to re-enter the Ellesmere Port well to determine whether commercial hydrocarbon production can be established from the Pentre Chert rock formation. This involves a Drill Stem Test, expected to last 14 days, and a 60-day extended well test.

Acid diluted to 15% will be pumped into the well to “re-establish natural flow in the formation”, IGas will say. During both tests, gas from the well will be burned in a flare. The company will say it does not propose to drill, deepen or frack the well.

Frack Free Ellesmere Port and Upton has criticised the application for its potential impact on climate change, public health and the local economy. One of its expert witnesses, Colin Watson, said:

“This application lacks clarity and opens a Pandora’s box of things they can do. The application contradicts itself in many areas and our attempts to seek clarity have failed. Given they have such a track record of ignoring planning permission, I wonder what they will do this time.”

Friends of the Earth will also be speaking at the inquiry. Its North West campaigner Helen Rimmer said:

“Thousands of local residents and the local council have clearly said no to shale gas testing in Cheshire, while climate scientists warn that fossil fuels must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic climate change.

“Residents in Ellesmere Port already suffer from poor air – the last thing they need is another polluting industry on their doorstep.

“Instead of forcing dirty fracking on communities, the government should back clean renewable energy which could create thousands of new jobs in Cheshire.”

DrillOrDrop will be reporting from the inquiry. You can catch up on the daily reports on our Ellesmere Port inquiry page here